Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Fulham, in the room of Martin Stevens Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 March.

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 March.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (BY ORDER)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 20 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 20 March.

LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Third reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 18 March at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Job Creation

Mr. Clay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to including measures in his Budget to reduce unemployment.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Clay: Is the Chief Secretary aware that last year the Chancellor concluded his Budget statement by describing the measures that he was taking as tackling the problem of unemployment where it was most acute and that it was a Budget for jobs? Since that time, unemployment has increased by over 114,000 in this country, over 9,000 in the northern region, over 1,300 in my constituency and by 259 in Fulham. When the Chancellor sits down on Tuesday—I know he will not tell us what measures he will take—but, in language that the unemployed will understand—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly please.

Mr. Clay: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether unemployment is likely to go up or down, where and when?

Mr. MacGregor: After that rather long speech, I should say that the main element affecting the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the Chancellor's Budget statement last year was a significant increase in expenditure on employment and training measures in 1986 and 1987, involving extra expenditure of £600 million, particularly concentrated on the youth training scheme. I believe that throughout 1986–87 that will have a significant effect.
The same applies to the enterprise allowance scheme, which was extended last year, and which is having substantial effect in encouraging people into self-employment.
I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that, in terms of getting unemployment down, the most significant element is by encouraging industry and commerce to provide jobs. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Confederation of Bitish Industry's February monthly trends inquiry showed that it was the best combined response in industry on prices and output since the inquiry started in 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for brief questions, because they lead to brief answers.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the people of Sunderland and to their elected representatives that the one thing certain to destroy jobs in Sunderland is a public spending spree of £24 billion?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such spending would mean either big increases in taxation or much higher borrowing, which would clobber industry. I know the point to which my hon. Friend is referring. I have just sent a letter to the right hon. Member for


Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) telling him that I still believe that the extra public expenditure involved in the Labour party's programme would be about £24 billion.

Mr. James Hamilton: As the right hon. Gentleman was educated in my constituency, knows Scotland well, and knows about the unemployment figures in Scotland, which are the highest in its history, is he aware that the British Steel Corporation has announced a further 414 redundancies in my constituency at the Clydesdale works? Unless there is a change in policy, there will be an upward trend in unemployment. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that inflation worsens the position. When will the Government change their policy and show that in their Budget?

Mr. MacGregor: Because I come from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I know of the need there, perhaps more than in most parts of the United Kingdom, to restructure from the old traditional industries, including the steel and coal mining industries, to modern industries. I have seen many examples in Scotland of vast new employment being created by modern industries. That is a considerable success story.

Interest Rates

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the level of interest rates.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Base rates have remained unchanged since 8 January.

Mr. Latham: As all the economic jigsaw pieces seem to be in place for an immediate and significant cut in interest rates, what is preventing such a cut? A cut in interest rates would be of great value to British business and to my right hon. Friend's counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that there would be a benefit from lower interest rates, although one should not exaggerate the difficulties of the present level of interest rates. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, the latest CBI monthly trends inquiry has shown the best combined response to output and prices since these figures were first collected. Of course, there is a difference between the United Kingdom and other countries, which have recently been able to reduce their interest rates. Those countries have benefited unambiguously from the fall in oil prices, whereas for Britain the effects have been inevitably more mixed. I think that the world trend can be nothing but helpful to this country.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House knows of his partiality for announcing interest rate cuts at the time of his Budget statement? Is he further aware that hon. Members will be extremely disappointed if the interest rate cut is not considerably more than 1 per cent?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has an extraordinary insight into my partiality, given that in none of my previous Budget statements did I announce a reduction in interest rates.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a 1 per cent. cut in the base rate would not only be welcome, but would give industry a boost? Does he also

agree that a 1 per cent. reduction in the amount of wage claims would reduce unit labour costs much more than would a 1 per cent. reduction in interest rates?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. It would reduce industry's costs by many times more. There is a further connection. As I told the National Economic Development Council in December, excessive wage increases put upward pressures on costs. It is essential to stop that cost pressure from leading to an upsurge in inflation. That inevitably means higher interest rates than would otherwise be required. There is a double benefit to industry from keeping firmer control on its pay costs.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sky-high interest rates which this country has had to tolerate under this Government have resulted in City bankers being able to make massive profits, whereas the manufacturing side of industry and local government have suffered as a result? The people in Fulham will vote out the Tory candidate, not merely because of unemployment, but because of the double standards operated by the Government to look after their friends in the City and to hell with everyone else.

Mr. Lawson: I must tell the hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Fulham I suspect is not very extensive, that if there were ever to be a Labour Government—which there will not—and they put into effect their £24 billion increase in public expenditure, the effect on borrowing would be to raise interest rates far higher than they are at present.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party's policy of directed reflation—which is the latest entertaining euphemism to come from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in an attempt to buy votes with a public expenditure addition of no less than £24 billion—would entail not only stratospheric interest rates but taxation rates even higher than under the Labour Government, a collapsing pound, souring inflation and truly catastrophic unemployment?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these affairs, and his assessment corresponds precisely with my own.

Mr. Hattersley: On the subject of interest rates, will the Chancellor break the habit of a lifetime, be frank with the House, and admit the squalid fact that the inevitable reduction in interest rates is being held back in order to give a little shine to a Budget which would otherwise be very lack lustre?

Mr. Lawson: I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman is expecting a reduction in interest rates. Not so long ago he told the House that there was bound to be an increase, but that did not happen.

Mr. Hattersley: There was one.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again. As I have said, interest rates have remained unchanged since 8 January, but since 8 January the right hon. Gentleman has confidently predicted that there would be an increase. He was wrong then, and he is always wrong.

Income Tax

Mr. Freud: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received concerning cuts in income tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): We have received a wide range of representations on this subject.

Mr. Freud: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that, in the light of the information today that only 3 per cent. of the work force have benefited from budgetary changes, most of the working people of this country cannot afford many more Tory tax cuts?

Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have tried to remind the House on many occasions that working people are benefiting at all levels, right down to half average earnings, from the enormous increase in the dynamics of the economy and the reduction in inflation. I wonder whether I might draw the attention of the constituents of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to the fact that clearly the budgetary submission of their Member of Parliament should be that, if the Chancellor has the opportunity to reduce taxes in next week's Budget, those reductions should not go to his constituents.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend observe that many people are deeply appreciative of the lower rates of tax under this Government at the higher levels, but that, if there is any more taxpayers' money to be put around, it is better that the decaying inner cities should receive the benefit?

Mr. Moore: I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be listening carefully to my hon. Friend's budgetary lobbying.

Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister not have the honesty to admit, be it in Fulham or anywhere else, that most people are now paying more tax, direct and indirect, than in 1979 when the Government took office? Have the Government any estimates of the amount of money which has been lost to the Treasury as a result of mass unemployment? If those millions of people had been allowed to earn their living, if there had been a different policy, how much more revenue would there have been from the people who are now unemployed being able to pay proper taxation?

Mr. Moore: It might be wise if I stay with the first of the hon. Gentleman's points, which was totally inaccurate. The people of this country are paying lower levels of income tax at all levels than they were when the Government came to power. Beyond the facts in connection with income tax, all people in work, whether on half, three quarters or average earnings, are better off than they were at any time under the previous Labour Government.

Young Persons (Financial Support)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Treasury of direct financial support to those aged over 16 and under 18 years.

Mr. MacGregor: Information on total social security expenditure for this age group is not available.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like myself, is seeking common ground as much as possible on this issue. As any young person between the ages of 16 and 18 has the opportunity of education, the youth training scheme or a job, is it not time that the money that is spent in this area, through supplementary benefit or unemployment pay, was spent in other directions? Do not the sensitive souls on the Opposition Benches also agree that that money could be better spent on the elderly and other people?

Mr. MacGregor: Young people who refuse an appropriate training place—I am thinking of the youth training scheme on which a considerable amount of the expenditure on those aged between 16 and 18 goes—already face a substantial financial penalty. If they refuse a place, it will result in the loss of unemployment benefit for a period, for those who are entitled to it, and payment of a substantially reduced rate of supplementary benefit. Therefore, it makes sense to concentrate expenditure on YTS. I hope that, in view of the penalties for those who do not take up places, there will be a substantial take-up.

Income Tax

Mr. Chope: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the additional revenue in the year 1986–87 if the marginal rate of tax on personal incomes in excess of £30,000 was increased to 100 per cent.

Mr. Lawson: Individual taxable incomes in excess of £30,000 total some £3½ billion, of which almost £2 billion is already paid in income tax. The theoretical additional yield of a 100 per cent. tax on this slice of income would thus be around £1½ billion, but the actual yield would be closer to zero as relatively few people are prepared to work for nothing.

Mr. Chope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full reply. Does he agree that it is a grave deception for any politician to suggest that a public expenditure programme of an additional £24 billion could be financed merely by taxing the better off, because it would mean that even those on well below average earnings would have to pay substantially higher income tax?

Mr. Lawson: That is right. My hon. Friend is on the ball, if I may use an expression of a sporting nature. There is an alternative. As the Labour party has said that it would not raise the basic rate of income tax, it is possible that it might have recourse to VAT, in which case, arithmetically, it would require a 41 per cent. rate of VAT.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that the burden of taxation on individuals has increased under the Government, and that, as a reply from one of his colleagues showed, the Government would have to reduce the basic rate by 5·7p to compensate for increases in taxation which people are paying in other spheres? Until he reduces the basic rate of tax by a further 5·7p, will he refrain from claiming that there have been decreases in taxation?

Mr. Lawson: First, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was right in saying that the levels of income tax now are considerably lower than they were under the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported. Secondly, total revenue from taxation has


increased, because incomes and prosperity have increased considerably. I welcome the fact that in future the hon. Gentleman would like to see a cut in tax. So would I.

Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the sum which would result from increasing taxes to 100 per cent. on incomes above £30,000 would not only be insufficient to pay for a programme of £24 billion extra expenditure, but would be wholly inadequate to pay for the more modest programmes espoused by alliance Members?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. We have not yet been able to cost the proposals put forward by the Liberal party and the SDP. One difficulty is that the proposals frequently conflict, but we shall get down to that in due course. Meanwhile, we have been able to cost properly, correctly and objectively the Labour party's proposals, and it is interesting that Labour Members have not been able to deny the accuracy of that costing.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received concerning increasing the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations concerning the public sector borrowing requirement and related matters.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer described his Budget as a Budget for jobs, but that unemployment has increased? Will he now acknowledge that a modest increase in the public sector borrowing requirement will be necessary to secure the finance to tackle the problem of unemployment? Will he now undertake to change his strategy, which would be destroyed by a modest increase in the PSBR?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that a number of measures which were announced last year have come into effect this year, although we have not yet seen their impact on jobs. I must make it clear that, as a result of the strategy that my right hon. Friend has been pursuing, the manufacturing industry and the economy are growing at a faster rate than before and inflation is at a lower level than for a long time. We are becoming more competitive, and that is the best guarantee for jobs in the future.

Mr. Watts: Can my right hon. Friend estimate what would be the effect on inflation and interest rates of a £24 billion increase in public expenditure implicit in the Labour party's programme and not to be funded through taxation?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly it would be very severe. I stick to the figure in the region of £24 billion. Yesterday I wrote to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and admitted that one of the figures that I gave earlier should be down, but said that another should be up. I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not given an alternative figure. If the sum of £24 billion is to be lower—I certainly hope it would be—I should be interested to know which of his colleagues' spending commitments he would intend to knock out. The right hon. Gentleman would have to do that, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Terry Davis: In view of the Government's track record from the so-called Budget for jobs last year back to the so-called Budget for enterprise in 1979 and the fact that the numbers of people working in Britain—the employed and the self-employed—have gone down by more than a million, what assurance can the Minister give the British people that this year's Budget will be any more successful than his right hon. Friend's previous Budgets?

Mr. MacGregor: The work force has grown considerably in recent years. Since 1983 there has been an increase in the numbers of people employed. One of the key factors is that we have had a consistently higher rate of manufacturing growth over a number of years.

Mr. Davis: One million fewer jobs.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the same is happening in other countries with technology, tax, and so on. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that we are on a better course with regard to inflation and growth than for a long time.

Income Tax

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the Green Paper on personal taxation.

Mr. Lawson: On Budget day.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Chancellor take the opportunity of the publication of the Green Paper to make it clear that he will extend the consultation period to include the possibility of integration of taxation and the benefit system? Will he also give an assurance that he will take note of the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation and of the European Community, to the effect that the arguments against transferable allowances are substantially stronger than those in favour of it because they discriminate against women's prospects for employment?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the Green Paper which is to be published on Budget day. I hope he will find it of interest when it is published. The matters to which he has referred will be fully aired in the Green Paper, and there will be every opportunity for consultation.

Mr. Portillo: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals will enable men and women to be treated equally in taxation matters? Does he agree that they are likely to be immensely popular and will represent an enormous step forward?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. An increasing number of married women are fed up with the way in which the present tax system discriminates against and treats them almost as second-class citizens. I think that they are right to have this sense of grievance. The proposals that are to be aired in the Green Paper would remove all of those grievances.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Chancellor aware that the programmes of a Labour Government will be funded not only through higher levels of taxation for the higher paid, but through the adoption of a completely different industrial strategy based on growth, as against the one of recession adopted by the Government? Another area that we could tap for higher taxes is the many billions of


pounds that are given away by the Government in the form of concessions on capital transfer and capital gains tax. The accumulation of the sources of finance would be quite sufficient to fund the major programme of a Labour Government.

Mr. Lawson: There is no way in which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can find £24 billion from capital taxes. Even the Labour Government, who introduced new and more punitive capital taxes, were unable to raise anything like that sum. Ten years ago, when they followed the hon. Gentleman's advice, they had to go cap in hand to the IMF.

Inflation

Andrew MacKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current level of inflation.

Mr. Lawson: Over the 12 months to January 1986, the RPI rose by 5½ per cent.

Mr. MacKay: How massively would inflation rise if the Labour party were given the opportunity to go on its £24 billion expenditure spree?

Mr. Lawson: It is difficult to make an exact estimate, but we all remember what happened when the Labour party was last in office—the rate of inflation rose to nearly 30 per cent.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Chancellor say which section of the Treasury established the figure of £24 billion, and whether that is wholly the work of the Treasury? Secondly, will he answer the question on the Order Paper and give details of the assessments that have already been provided to him by Treasury officials?

Mr. Lawson: I shall readily explain to the hon. Gentleman as briefly as I can that Treasury Ministers collected a list of various published pledges to which the Labour party is committed and then asked Treasury officials to give an objective costing of these proposals. They did that, and the figure that was arrived at was £24 billion.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the first time since 1979, this year British exports have increased as a percentage of world trade? Does this not reflect by his ability to take care of the problems of inflation?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right, and it is a remarkable fact that in recent years British manufacturing industry and British industry generally have been more successful in holding their share of world trade than they have been for a long time.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Chancellor also confirm the more remarkable fact that the only roughly equivalent industrial nation that has a higher level of inflation than us is Italy? Was that the Chancellor's aim two years ago when he took office?

Mr. Lawson: I notice that the official spokesman for the alliance, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that the party's programme would produce inflation of 7½ per cent. I shall be dealing with the prospects for inflation in my Budget statement, but I do

not regard the present level of inflation as satisfactory, even though it is far lower than that achieved by the Labour party when in government.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the conquest of inflation and the return to honest money the foundation of the Government's economic policy and the essential prerequisite for industrial, and consequently commercial, success?

Mr. Lawson: It is indeed the foundation of the Government's economic policy, and I assure my hon. Friend, who has been one of the Government's most stalwart supporters through their seven years of office, that it will remain the foundation of our economic policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Why is it that our inflation rate is now running faster and higher than the inflation rate in the countries of our major OECD competitors?

Mr. Lawson: The plain fact is that I do not regard the present rate of inflation as satisfactory, even though it is far lower than was ever achieved during the period of that Government of which he was a Minister, but I am confident that it will come down.

Tobacco Industry

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the tobacco industry concerning his forthcoming Budget.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): Representations have been received from the Tobacco Advisory Council, individual companies, employees in the industry and trade union representatives.

Mr. Parry: When the Chancellor considers his Budget proposals, will he bear in mind that most tobacco factories are situated in areas of high unemployment and that more than 60,000 jobs have been lost in the tobacco industry since 1979? Will he tell the health lobby that in the last financial year more than £5 billion was raised through duty and VAT on tobacco products? Is he further aware that 200 Members have sent petitions to the right hon. Gentleman asking that there be no increase on cigarettes higher than the rise in inflation and no increase at all on pipe tobacco?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but industrial implications will obviously be one of the considerations that he will bear in mind.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Has my hon. Friend asked his right hon. Friend not to increase tobacco duty in the coming Budget by more than the rate of inflation in case he succeeds in killing off the tobacco goose that lays many golden eggs for him?

Mr. Brooke: Again I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but I am sure that he will take all considerations into account.

Mr. Pavitt: In all those considerations, naturally the Chancellor will be taking into account the health factors. Has he made the calculation that 6p on a packet of cigarettes would produce half the amount of the National Health Service bill for chronic emphysema, carcinoma and chronic bronchitis treated in NHS hospitals?

Mr. Brooke: The representations to which I referred in my answer have also included health interests, and I have been delighted to receive all of them, as has my right hon. Friend.

Business Expansion Scheme

Mr. Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures available for the annual rate of investment under the business expansion Scheme.

Mr. Moore: The figures are £105 million in 1983–84, something in excess of £126 million in 1984–85 and we expect the amount to be higher still in 1985–86.

Mr. Freeman: I congratulate the Government on the success of the business expansion scheme, which shows that the spirit of free enterprise flourishes in the country. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when he expects to publish the Peat, Marwick and Mitchell report?

Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his congratulations. He is correct to say that the scheme has helped hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs. I can confirm that the Peat, Marwick and Mitchell report will be published in full on Budget day.

Mr. Meadowcroft: How far would lower interest rates reduce the demands on the business expansion scheme? Why on earth, for instance, should manufacturers consider manufacture when they can get more money by lending money?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the nature of the business expansion scheme. He misunderstands the nature of the way in which high risk relates to high rewards and the way in which it has inspired a complete change in the entrepreneurial nature of society. I am unhappy that he obviously is not supporting from the Opposition Benches the nature of the business expansion scheme.

Income Tax

Mr. Amess: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers he estimates are assessed at the standard rate of income tax during the current financial year.

Mr. Moore: Approximately 24 million, of whom 23 million pay tax exclusively at the basic rate.

Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to reduce the standard rate of taxation, and does he agree that, if the black economy was not as buoyant as it appears to be, we would all be paying less in tax?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have reduced considerably the burden of income tax. The thresholds have been increased in real terms by 20 per cent., and the basic rate has been reduced from 33 to 30 per cent. I think it peculiarly inappropriate for me at this juncture to do more than draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blair: Does the Financial Secretary agree that those who do not pay tax exclusively at the standard rate certainly number among them some of those earning very high salaries in the City? In those circumstances, how does he justify allowing them not to have assessed for income tax the vast sums of money that they are paid when they join their new firms?

Mr. Moore: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures that the Chancellor gave earlier. Those paying

above the basic rate pay a substantial amount of tax, well in excess of £2 billion. I should have thought that that was a clear indication of their commitment, through their very high rates of tax, to the success of the economy.

Value Added Tax

Sir John Farr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to relax the level of penalties on late payment of value added tax by small firms when special circumstances exist.

Mr. Brooke: I can assure my hon. Friend that the surcharge, which comes into force in October, will not apply where the taxpayer can show a reasonable excuse to Customs and Excise or, on appeal, to an independent VAT tribunal.

Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that there have been a number of cases of hardship, particularly in relation to small companies? When the new regulations are brought into effect in the autumn, will he try to iron out some of the present inflexibility?

Mr. Brooke: Customs and Excise is prepared to be as helpful as possible to traders who are experiencing temporary difficulties. However, in fairness to the bulk of traders who pay tax on time, it cannot allow others to regard regularly delayed payments of VAT as a convenient no-cost source of working capital.

Mr. Stern: I accept my hon. Friend's answer. Nevertheless, does he agree that since the Customs and Excise proposals became law there have been sufficient worries among small firms to indicate to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that there might be an argument for delay in introducing the similar proposals of the Keith committee relating to income tax?

Mr. Brooke: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend.

Economic Demand

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of total demand in the economy.

Mr. MacGregor: The 3½ per cent. growth of gross domestic product in 1985 is likely to be the highest in the European Community and probably higher than in the United States.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement in the 1944 White Paper on employment that the country will avoid mass unemployment if the total demand for its goods and services is maintained at a high level?

Mr. MacGregor: I did not quite catch what my hon. Friend said, but I think that what is absolutely clear—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I missed a crucial word in my hon. Friend's question. However, it is absolutely clear that we have seen a higher growth in real demand and therefore in the level of proper demand in the economy, which I am sure he will agree is not money demand, as money demand has been brought down. It is the fall in inflation and the success of other policies that have enabled us to achieve that higher growth in demand.

Dr. McDonald: But is the Chief Secretary aware that the level of total demand is lower than it might otherwise


be because the oil companies have failed to pass on to domestic and industrial consumers the 50 per cent. drop in crude oil prices? That failure means high and rising unemployment. What does the Chief Secretary intend to do to ensure that the oil companies pass on these benefits to the economy?

Mr. MacGregor: I recall that the hon. Lady wanted to have discussions with OPEC to ensure that oil prices did not come down. On balance, the drop in oil prices has been of benefit to the economy and has produced much greater prospects for industry, including exports, because of lower costs. I certainly hope that more of the lower prices will be passed on to assist industry to do even more.

Value Added Tax

Mrs. Currie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue would be yielded by each additional percentage point in the rate of value added tax.

Mr. Brooke: One percentage point on the standard rate of VAT would bring in about £945 million extra in a full year, at 1986–87 prices.

Mrs. Currie: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I ask him to clarify something that I believe I heard his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer say a moment ago about the yield from VAT? I wondered whether he was quite serious about it. Did he say that if this country suffered the twin misfortunes of a future Labour Government and the incredible spending programme that the Labour party has presented to this nation, VAT would not be 15 per cent., as it is now, or 20 per cent., or 25 per cent., or even 30 per cent., but would be 41 per cent.?

Mr. Brooke: When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury unveiled the Opposition's spending plans he said that it would require a VAT rate of 41 per cent. to achieve that £24 billion of expenditure. My right hon. Friend was characteristically generous in his estimate. Since larger increases would yield progressively less revenue, the figure would therefore be considerably in excess of 41 per cent.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it sensible for the Minister to use the resources of his Department to construct an entirely fictitious figure, which he says is the cost of the Labour party's programme, and then to encourage all of his hon. Friends to try to make the figure stick by constantly repeating it, as though a lie constantly repeated becomes the truth?

Mr. Brooke: I was asked about the extra yield of an additional 1 per cent. Even a Treasury Minister can divide £18·5 billion by 15.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Sackville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the level of public expenditure.

Mr. MacGregor: Public expenditure has been mentioned in some Budget representations. It is customary for the Government to receive representations on these matters throughout the year.

Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of the Labour party to cost its extraordinarily irresponsible spending programme is a fraud on the British public?

Mr. MacGregor: What is interesting about our public expenditure plans is that they will remain constant in real terms over the next three years and fall as a proportion of gross domestic product. What is interesting about today's Question Time is that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) clearly does not wish to deny the figure of £24 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that today's reports of unlimited extra money for teachers' pay in Scotland simply encourage militant teachers in England, who want to use the current ACAS negotiations as a pause before further disruption in our schools? Therefore, will she ensure that Ministers give the same positive support and financial commitment to the ACAS negotiations as they are giving to the independent inquiry in Scotland, so that teachers, parents and, most important, pupils can look forward to lasting peace in the schools?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, because I think that the reports have not been wholly accurate. As he knows, there is a formula for distributing extra money. The formula is on a well-known basis, so that when changes are made in public expenditure programmes for England and Wales, changes are made in the comparable Scottish programmes on the basis of the fixed formula. That formula will still obtain for taxpayers' money.

Sir John Farr: Notwithstanding the statement in the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister see whether something can be done so that British Airways can be privatised in the immediate future? That would meet the needs and desires of many people.

The Prime Minister: Yes, we are anxious to get British Airways privatised. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are certain legal and negotiating requirements under the Bermuda agreement with the United States and we must safeguard our vital interests before British Airways can be privatised.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports that the Budget commissioner, Mr. Christopherssen, has said that the United Kingdom rebate is now in doubt? Will she confess that the rebate was not automatic, as she promised, and will she tell the House what she intends to do about it?

The Prime Minister: The rebate is made upon a formula. I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is


referring to. There are times when there has to be a small supplementary budget to enable us to receive our rebate. Our refunds have risen from £440 million for 1983 to £570 million for 1984, and to at least £830 million for 1985. So the amount we are getting back has almost doubled in two years.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a growing and strong link between violent crime, including rape, and the widespread misuse of heroin and cocaine? Will she confirm that the Government are giving, and will continue to give, the highest priority and all the resources that may be necessary to meet the terrible dangers of drug abuse?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the use of drugs makes all crime, and particularly crimes of violence, worse than they would otherwise have been. We shall give every priority to tackling this terrible canker in our lives. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, largely at his instigation we are changing the law to make it easier to get at the proceeds of this dastardly crime.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of the continuing and alarming rise in crime—a massive increase of 41 per cent. since 1978—will the Prime Minister ensure that new money is allocated to local authorities to assist them in their efforts to make streets and homes safer in their areas for ordinary citizens, especially the elderly?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that local authorities were given extra money through the police grant. Some money is expended under the community programme to further crime prevention programmes.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not that answer somewhat misleading? At the crime prevention seminar which the right hon. Lady held back in January the only new money that was ever referred to was the £50 million to be taken from the housing improvement programme. Does she not think that that would be an inadequate sum from absolutely the wrong source? Will she acknowledge that the sums involved in improving door locks, the standards and safety of doors, lighting, telephone entry systems and many other additions to security should be paid for, and that they can appropriately be assisted by the Government?

The Prime Minister: Most people will and should be able to make their own provision for crime prevention.

Mr. Skinner: Someone can if he lives in Dulwich.

The Prime Minister: As with almost every question, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he wants to put his hands deeper into the taxpayers' pocket. It is important to say—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady does not care.

The Prime Minister: Opposition Members do not care how much they take away from the taxpayer. It is far better for most people, who are able to do so, to take crime prevention measures themselves. As for the elderly, who cannot afford to take such measures, it is very proper use of money and labour from, for example, the community programme, to assist with a crime prevention scheme. I will stand comparison with any Opposition Member on personal care and provision—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult, even for me, to hear against this background noise.

Mr. Kinnock: Much of what the right hon. Lady says might be true in Dulwich, but it is not necessarily true on housing estates throughout the country. If we do not find resources to help old people and poor people to protect their homes and their streets, we shall have to find the money in any case to help the police detect the crime, too late—after the damage has been done.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's record on the police should be compared with ours. We have provided extra police and extra equipment, and he goes and shakes hands with Bernie Grant and Scargill.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend encouraged to pursue her economic policies by the annual report of the British Overseas Trade Board, which says that British manufacturing industry is improving its performance and that last year it expanded its volume exports by 8 per cent., thus proving that the rubbish spoken by Opposition Members about the British manufacturing base contracting is utterly false, as it is expanding?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is right. British manufacturing industry increased its exports last year by a further 8·5 per cent. That contributes greatly to our balance of payments and to the provision of jobs. Management and work force should be warmly congratulated.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: In connection with the crime figures, is the Prime Minister giving urgent attention to the large increase in reported crimes of rape and sexual assault on women? Does she believe that, among other things, what appears in the media plays some part in creating the climate of opinion in which so much of this violence takes place? Will she dissociate herself from the offensive way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was ridiculed when she tried to bring this matter before the House yesterday, and will she perhaps use her influence to bring together some of the newspaper proprietors and editors to talk about how they might improve the climate and not add to the grief of the victims of rape?

The Prime Minister: Rape is a uniquely barbaric offence and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very pleased with the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, which set out guideline sentences of a much more severe kind than seem to have been applied in previous cases. The whole of the media bear a great responsibility for the way in which they report crimes of violence. As far as this particular crime is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the name of the victim must not be given, by law, after a charge has been made, and that there are certain customs and conventions which obtain between the commission of this terrible offence and the court which one would hope would be observed by the press.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend remember that in July last year we held a very informative meeting on the deregulation of the six freeports in the United Kingdom? She kindly gave me a letter after the meeting, but unfortunately I have to say today that the six freeports are


ailing and dying because Customs and Excise is still applying all the regulations within its power. VAT, import duties and all the other taxes are still being charged within the freeports by Customs and Excise. The six freeports are very worried about this.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let us have details. I think he is saying that fees are being charged which should not be charged because they are freeports. I doubt very much whether the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise is charging what should not be charged, but if they are, perhaps my hon. Friend will let us know.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: If the Prime Minister is not concerned about the old-age pensioners, I wonder whether she could show some concern for shop workers. Is she aware that 99 of her right hon. and hon. Friends have signed early-day motion No. 90 requesting a free vote on the Sunday trading legislation? Is she also aware that early-day motion No. 538 asking for the preservation of the traditional Sunday is supported by 70 right hon. and hon. Members? Is she further aware that Home Office Ministers have expressed great concern at the fact that they have received 400 letters in support of the Shops Bill and 40,000 against it? Is it not time that she reconsidered the situation and either withdrew the Bill or took it to the country?

The Prime Minister: First, with regard to pensions, I would point out that when the pension went up in November it went up to the highest ever level in real terms, and this is the first time that we have had an interim increase in the pension.
Secondly, if the law on Sunday trading were to be enforced, garden centres, do-it-yourself shops, furniture shops and video shops would be closed, newsagents and chemists would be able to sell only a fraction of their normal stock, and food shops would be trading illegally if they sold anything except fresh fruit, vegetables and milk. It is legal to sell on a Sunday boiled fish and baked potatoes at a fish and chip shop, but not fish and chips. Fish and chips may be sold at any takeaway food shop except a fish and chip shop. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be utterly impossible to carry on with the existing law on Sunday trading.

Mr. Amess: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend read press reports today which show that, despite the negative

attitude of the Socialist parties towards Britain's manufacturing prospects and performance, it is predicted that exports of manufactured goods will increase to offset any loss of oil revenues?

The Prime Minister: Exports of manufactured goods are doing very well and have increased by 8·5 per cent. in volume terms—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are not interested in good news. This is good news for manufacturing industry and will provide jobs. Opposition Members would much prefer not to listen to success stories. Moreover, there is wider investment in manufacturing. In 1985, overall investment reached an all-time record of about £60 billion.

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Neill: Given the Prime Minister's well known interest in law and order, may I ask her to consider what happened at Wapping last night, when one of Rupert Murdoch's lorries ran into a crowd of people who were peacefully listening to speeches from Privy Councillors and members of the shadow Cabinet? Will she institute a full inquiry into the rogue lorry that attacked those people last night?

The Prime Minister: I regret that in this incident two demonstrators at Wapping suffered injuries, and I am glad to report that neither was seriously hurt. Two police officers also suffered minor injuries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express sympathy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one question has been asked.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express sympathy for the 79 policemen who have been injured at the picket line at Wapping.

Later—

Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a short but not bogus point of order arising from questions. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered question 13, he distinctly said that he had not heard the queston. Before the question could be repeated, he answered it, without having heard the original question.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is legitimate to raise this point of order. If a Minister does not hear a question, he should ask for it to be repeated so that he can purport to answer it. To purport to answer a question when that question is inaudible is, even for this Minister, extraordinary conduct.

Mr. Speaker: I also noticed that, but I am not responsible for Minister's answers.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Gas Bill (1st Allotted day).
TUESDAY 18 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation (No. 2) Order.
Debate on a motion on the second report of the Privileges Committee in Session 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 555).
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH AND THURSDAY 20 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
FRIDAY 21 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 24 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.

[Tuesday 18 March (Debate on Budget Statement) Relevant European Documents

(a) 9792/85 Annual Economic Report 1985–86.
(b) Unnumbered Annual Economic Report 1985–86 (final version as adopted)

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 21–ii (1985–86) para 2.
(b) HC 21 -xii (1985–86) para 3.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Since the Budget debates will take up much of the time before the Easter recess, for which day has the right hon. Gentleman arranged the debate on the sale of Land Rover, Freight Rover, Leyland Trucks and related businesses, which he promised would be held before Easter?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about the peculiar circumstances surrounding the proposal by the Conservative and Liberal coalition on Hammersmith and Fulham borough council to sell Stewart lodge old people's home? The sale will have to be approved in the normal way by the Secretary of State, and it has been reported that, oddly, the borough council has recommended the acceptance of an offer which is lower than seven other offers that were received.
There is a great deal of public and parliamentary interest today in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on radioactive waste. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that time is allocated for a debate on that report as soon as possible after the Easter recess?
I asked the right hon. Gentleman last week whether he would ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Government's attitude towards President Reagan's readiness to contemplate the use of military force against the Republic of Nicaragua. No statement has been forthcoming. Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us

whether the Government will endorse the opposition of many Members to the provision of funds to the terrorist Contras operating in and around Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to what the right hon. Gentleman says about Nicaragua. The Environment Committee has produced a most significant report on nuclear waste, which will require an initial Government response. I will be happy to be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels about its subsequent parliamentary handling.
I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham and will refer it to my right hon. Friend.
As for a debate on Land Rover, doubtless we can look at that matter through the usual channels, bearing in mind the commitment that I gave on 20 February.

Mr. Michael Latham: If we are to have a statement on local government such as the Leader of the Opposition has requested, could we have one on the trend of rates where the Labour and Liberal parties have control of county councils? In Leicester they have gone up by a shocking amount.

Mr. Biffen: Shropshire, in a sense, could match that experience. I can only tell my hon. Friend that I have no immediate plans for parliamentary consideration of the point that he makes, although I recognise it as pertinent.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Government's proposed changes to Sunday trading be debated before or after Easter? Has the Patronage Secretary decided whether there will be a free vote on this issue? What progress has been made on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?

Mr. Biffen: On the last point, I have nothing to add to what I said last week. As to the point in respect of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that topic. All I can say about the Second Reading of the Bill is that it has not been provided for in the statement that I have just made.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Before we reach the debate on the Shops Bill, can my right hon. Friend arrange a suitable leak from a Government source on what kind of compromise is being proposed, so that when we come to the Second Reading we will all know where we stand?

Mr. Biffen: So many in this Chamber are much more skilled at that task than I am that I would prefer not to undertake such a requirement.

Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) during Prime Minister's Questions of the deplorable and dangerous incident that occurred last night outside the premises of News International in Wapping in my constituency, when a heavy lorry leaving the plant ploughed its way through a dense crowd of peaceful demonstrators, inflicting injury on a number of those who could not escape its passage. This event was witnessed by me and by three of my hon. Friends. Will the Home Secretary make an early statement not only on this particular event but on the arrangements made between the police and News International for the


movement of these lorries, with a view to avoiding any repetition of what could easily have been a disastrous and tragic event?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, of course, I will refer that request to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have read with great interest the debate in the American Congress on the conduct of domestic affairs in this country and the wish of the Americans to give us money with strings attached. When will we have the opportunity of debating whether or not we want the money and of telling the Americans to give it to someone else?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to those sentiments, so robustly expressed.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman was not entirely unsympathetic earlier in the Session when I asked that the House should have an opportunity to debate the important matter of the dispersal of objects and paintings from semi-public institutions, which are not, unfortunately, open to restraints on export because of their average values. When can the House have an opportunity to discuss that really very important and critical matter which may be peripheral to a lot of people but is central to the cultural life of Britain?

Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's points and I shall refer his remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend read this morning the alarming speech of the Budget Commissioner to the European Assembly saying that there is no chance of Britain getting its £380 million rebate for 1984 unless we agree to breach the spending guidelines for 1986? Will my right hon. Friend give a firm and clear commitment that, before the Government even consider breaking through the agreed guidelines, which were the basis for selling the argument for increased EEC resources to this House, they will seek the approval of the House of Commons, not do it in Brussels and then come back here and ask for approval?

Mr. Biffen: No, I have not read the speech, but I shall look into the matter and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Leader of the House seek an opportunity to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that there is a debate in the House before he introduces byelaws which will severely restrict civil liberties surrounding certain MOD establishments in Wales and elsewhere?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly comply with that request.

Mr. David Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that to introduce during Lent any measure which would limit Sunday as a day of rest would be particularly insensitive and most unpopular in the House and the country.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am just wondering whether it implies that he may have a change of heart after Easter.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Leader of the House aware that, to put it mildly, there is now

considerable confusion and anxiety about the level of the Government's contribution, if any, to the settlement of the Scottish teachers' salaries which has just been reached and that that confusion will have been added to by the answer given by the Prime Minister this afternoon, which suggested that there would be no contribution? Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on this next week?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly cannot accept that comment about the Prime Minister and the extent to which her remarks clarified the situation, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to that request.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange an early debate on the reckless overspending that is now gathering momentum in the EEC and which has culminated in today's announcement that Britain is not likely to receive its £380 million promised rebate? Rather than give in to that kind of blackmail from Europe, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider whether we should withhold our payment of the next EEC money?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot really go any further than the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan)? A position was reached in Scotland which today has been blown out of the water by the Prime Minister. We now require the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House. The Prime Minister said that the independent pay review is no longer an independent pay review; it will be determined by the discussions and the formula reached in England and Wales—in other words, the Goschen formula. That is completely opposed to the agreement that was made and we must ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House to make a statement to clarify the matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Biffen: I told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that I would refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the consternation and fury of Londoners at the pressure of the GLC on tax and ratepayers to spend some £25 million of their money before abolition on 31 March, given the legal opportunity to do so, including £2·5 million for the Trade Union Resource Trust which employs nobody? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House so that he can answer questions on the possibility of legislation to stop that Socialist body damaging London and London's ratepayers in this disgraceful and unacceptable way?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raised that important point with me this time last week. I will say again now what I said then—that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the issue.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance, in view of the


statement by the Chairman of Ways and Means during the passage of the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill, that the procedures on private Bills will be debated in the House as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think that I can give any hope of an early debate on that.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In order for us successfully to combat violent crime, will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate sentencing policy, so that many of us can express our desire for legislation which would enable the prosecution to appeal against over-lenient sentences?

Mr. Biffen: There is no prospect of a debate shortly in Government time. I regret that my hon. Friend was doubtless unlucky in seeking to have this matter ballotted for a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. However, I shall mention the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Is the Leader of the House aware of the public outrage and anger at the way in which unscrupulous foreigners such as Mr. Rupert Murdoch treat the workers at Wapping? That treatment is to the disadvantage of workers who have spent most, or the whole, of their working lives with that company and nearly led to the tragic accident which has been referred to. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time that the House debated the whole sordid mess surrounding News International?

Mr. Biffen: No, but I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about it he might use the opportunity of an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 538 which calls for an amendment of substance to the Shops Bill?
[That this House calls upon the Government to seek to amend the Shops Bill [Lords] so as to preserve the special character of Sunday and to have regard for the principles and conscience of those who would be affected by the total de-regulation of Sunday trading.]
Has my right hon. Friend noted that it has been signed by over 60 of his right hon. and hon. Friends? Does he consider that that is perhaps a significant number, in view of the size of the overall majority of the Government in the House? In view of the results of the recent Harris poll, does he not think that the best judge of public opinion on this subject in this country would be a free vote by all hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend knows, voting is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to deploy his arguments on the wider issues on the Second Reading of the Shops Bill.

Mr. James Lamond: The Leader of the House will know that, since the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, events have moved on considerably and a unanimous mandate has now been agreed among the EEC members who are interested in the MFA? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister for Trade to come to the House next week to make a statement

which could keep us up to date with what is happening? It is of supreme importance to many of the people involved in textiles in the north-west of England, and that amounts to many hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that was the subject of a written answer. However, I shall mention to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman now makes.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the shocking percentage increase in crimes of rape—50 per cent. in London and 33 per cent. in Leicestershire? Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 451?
[That this House would welcome the abolition of the anonymity of rape defendents prior to the institution of proceedings both to assist the police and to protect the public and rape victims by announcing the names of those charged with such detestable crimes; and calls for legislation to this effect as a matter of urgency.]
It calls for an opportunity to amend the law so that the names of those charged with rape can be published.
Will my right hon. Friend also consider the difficult problem of the rape victim in Ealing, who was virtually identified by some of the media? Can the law be changed so that rape victims are given the sympathy and the rape attackers are given the force of the law, with long terms of imprisonment?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at early-day motion 592 about cancer screening for women working at the Palace of Westminster?
[That this House regrets that proposals made by the Transport and General Workers Union and the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs representatives, that necessary facilities for cancer screening for women working at the Palace of Westminster be made available to enable a mobile caravan unit operated by the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign, were turned down by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services); and requests them to reconsider their decision.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that regular, systematic cancer screening can avoid many unnecessary deaths? Will he ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to reconsider its most unfortunate decision?

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Lady fairly admits, the matter has recently been considered by the Services Committee. The Committee's view differed from the hon. Lady's, but I shall certainly draw the Committee's attention to her point.

Mr. James Couchman: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 372, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)? Signed by 168 right hon. and hon. Members, it asks for the introduction of a law to permit longer and more flexible licensing hours.
[That this House calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Licensing Acts for England and Wales to permit longer and flexible opening hours.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people who, like me, own, manage or work in hotels, restaurants or public houses, which make such a contribution to the Treasury and tourism, will be dismayed by reports that the Government have decided not to bring forward modest reforms in 1986–87? Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to that fact? Will he ask him to consider reforming the law, so as to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland where, as a recent report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has suggested, the licensing hours are very popular?

Mr. Biffen: I shall comply with that request.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 547, tabled by me?
[That this House regards with grave concern the decision of Mr. Justice Glidewell, Mr. Justice Caulfield and Mr. Justice Russell to disqualify democratically elected councillors from Liverpool and Lambeth; notes that judges are themselves appointed and not elected; and calls for the immediate dismissal of these judges.]
Has he also seen early-day motions 556 and 557, which have been tabled by my colleagues?
[That this House condemns the decision of the High Court in imposing a surcharge and potential disqualification on 80 democratically elected Labour councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool; recognises that the action of the district auditors in bringing the case to courts against these councillors is part of a concerted attack on local democracy, jobs and services; notes that this draconian penalty is not applicable to any other class of elected public representative; demands that no further action be taken against all those other councillors and councils who similarly have sought to defend their communities; and calls for the immediate removal from the statute book of these powers of surcharge and disqualification.]
[That this House, following the decision of the High Court to surcharge 80 Labour councillors from Liverpool and Lambeth and to impose fines on them of between £2,000 and £4,000 each, draws attention to the fact that the District Auditor, who initiated the court action, is unelected and unaccountable to this House whereas the Labour councillors were democratically elected; believes that only the voters should have the right to remove them; recognises that the court decision could result in the surcharge of several other Labour councils who set a late rate; salutes the courageous stand of the Liverpool and Lambeth councillors to protect jobs, homes and services; supports the taking of industrial action by local authority trade unions to prevent the Labour councillors being removed from office; and looks forward to the election of a future Labour Government who will restore to these brave socialists their democratic right to stand for public office and re-imburse any fines imposed by the courts.]
Those early-day motions deal with High Court action last week against Liverpool and Lambeth councillors. That High Court judgment could lead to the disqualification and bankruptcy of democratically elected councillors. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to consider dismissing those politically biased judges?

Mr. Biffen: I receive many requests, but I think that this is the first time I have been asked to be an intermediary in the dismissal of judges. I shall, of course, refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of concern at the publicising on television and in newspapers of specific methods of committing criminal offences? When may we expect a statement on this subject and the introduction of a statutory code banning such publicity?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that point and get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was the Leader of the House paying his normal rapt attention to the proceedings in the House during Trade and Industry questions yesterday, when I asked a legitimate question of Trade Ministers? It was answered by reference to answers given by the Secretary of State for Defence which in no way covered the question asked. Mr. Speaker understandably said that the way in which Ministers answered questions was not a matter for him. However, it is a matter for the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House.
Next week, will the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House rebuke any of their ministerial colleagues who slide out of answering legitimate questions by reference to answers to questions that were not asked?

Mr. Biffen: If I chastised every Minister who provided a reply which the hon. Gentlman thought was unsatisfactory, I would have no other occupation.

Mr. David Sumberg: When will the House have an opportunity to express its satisfaction at the vote by the people of Spain that their country should remain a member of NATO? As Monsignor Bruce Kent has tramped over to that country to tell the Spanish Government not to be part of NATO, would it not be nice for the House to have a chance to express its satisfaction that at least one European Socialist leader can resist the blandishments of CND and Monsignor Kent?

Mr. Biffen: That is an entertaining proposition. It opens up flourishing prospects for Monsignor Bruce Kent in activities nearer home. My hon. Friend has requested a debate. I think that that might be considered in the context of a general foreign affairs debate at some future date.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I also add my weight to the arguments for a debate or statement on Wapping, in view of the accident—the deliberate assault—last night on the picket line? In view of the Prime Minister's performance today on security and dangers on the streets and in the homes, may we start having debates about broken promises? Did the Prime Minister not go to the country in 1979 claiming to set the people free? After today's performance, she is calling upon the people to lock themselves in.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman calls for a number of debates. If I had endless time, I should be delighted to oblige the hon. Gentleman because in every instance the Government would emerge triumphant and so sustain our political fortunes more generally.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman is an idealist.

Mr. Biffen: It needs an idealist to match an idealist. I shall be very interested to find out what the Labour Party does about the present dispute concerning News International.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 582 concerning free speech on the campus?
[That this House notes the improved statement of intent from the vice-chancellors and principals of universities to uphold the right of free speech and acknowledges the efforts of some university authorities to protect that right; regrets that this determination is not uniform among all institutions of higher education; deplores the continuation of a 'no platform' policy among students in many universities; believes that the majority of students have no wish for such a policy designed to gag political opponents; and urges Her Majesty's Government to support legislation to safeguard this fundamental feature of the purpose of universities.]
Bearing in mind the increasing examples of intolerance in universities, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who are concerned about the future of higher education feel that the matter should be debated in the House and that we hope that legislation will be introduced? I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me on that point.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on that topic, but that does not in any sense lead me to deny the importance of that subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his point.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the Leader of the House give a sensible and not a flippant answer to the following question? What is the Government's position about the situation that has arisen in the coal mining industry as a result of the failure of the National Coal Board and the Secretary of State for Energy to intervene in the decision to close Bates' colliery despite the recommendation of the independent colliery review tribunal? Does the Leader of the House realise that

NACODS is proposing to hold a ballot on an overtime ban and that if that is carried it would bring the coalfields to a standstill? Does he also realise that there is no confidence whatsoever in the future of the colliery review procedure and that many of the coal mining unions are contemplating boycotting it? Is he concerned about the position that has arisen? It is no use the Leader of the House saying, by way of answer, that he will speak to the Secretary of State for Energy, because the Secretary of State for Energy is invisible and flatly refuses to come to the House to answer questions on that subject.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have spoilt his question with his sneering final sentences. That is precisely the course of action that it is prudent and sensible for me to take—to refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Ray Powell: I was not going to ask the Leader of the House any questions this afternoon, but as the Prime Minister was in one of her moods and was not prepared to give a reasonable reply to my question, I must ask him about it and also ask him to correct the suggestion by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that early-day motion 538 was signed by 60 hon. Members. It was actually signed by 70 right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Since the Government have not received a mandate from any source for the introduction of the Shops Bill, will the Leader of the House consider the tremendous opposition expressed in letters sent to hon. Members and to Ministers at the Home Office? Only 400 letters were in favour and 40,000 were against the Bill. With such tremendous opposition, will the Government now consider withdrawing the Bill or at least go to the country to decide whether it should be introduced?

Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his preferences clear on that matter. Next week's business contains no provision for the Second Reading of the Bill but the hon. Gentleman will know that it has passed through another place; I expect to be announcing the date of Second Reading before too long.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Nuclear Waste

4 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The disposal of nuclear waste material has now become an issue of general and intense concern to the British people. Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss at such an early time those matters that lie at the heart of the report published yesterday by the Environment Select Committee.
One consequence of that general interest is that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are present now to show their interest. I am particularly glad to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and Opposition Members.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the Chief Whip?

Mr. Hogg: I am coming to the Chief Whip. I have no doubt that all of them will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the debate.
We who can speak in this place on this matter are a great deal more fortunate than those who by reason of their office are precluded from speaking. I am referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), the Patronage Secretary. His opposition to the suggestion that this material should go to Bradwell in his constituency is matched only by my opposition to the suggestion that it should go to Fulbeck—

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: And mine.

Mr. Hogg: It is also matched by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). We welcome the presence of the Chief Whip on the Front Bench because he will lend powerful support to my arguments.
On 25 February 1986 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement to the House to the effect that NIREX had identified four possible sites for the disposal of low-level and short-lived intermediate level nuclear waste. Those places are Elstow, Bradwell, South Killingholme and Fulbeck airfield, which is in my constituency. I wish to make it plain that my constituents wholly and utterly reject the suggestion that nuclear waste should be brought to Fulbeck airfield. We shall fight this proposal on three grounds. First, we shall

contend that a near surface disposable system is not a proper, safe or necessary way of disposing of intermediate level waste. Secondly, we shall say that the hydrological and geological properties that are to be found at Fulbeck airfield are inappropriate for the construction of a near surface disposal site. Thirdly, we shall say that we believe that the road communications to the site are such that no safe system of transporting nuclear waste to the airfield is possible. Those will be our main but not our only arguments.
Today, I should like to concentrate on one argument, the proposition that surface or near surface disposal systems are not a safe, necessary or appropriate way of disposing of intermediate level waste.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On several occasions, I have given what I believe to be the solution to the problem. Will the hon. Gentlman make it clear during his speech how he thinks we shall ultimately resolve this difficulty? I trust that he will not suggest putting the site in another constituency. Will he put a real and sensible proposition to the House?

Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I shall satisfy him on that point.
The proposition that lies at the core of all the arguments is that near surface disposal facilities are not a proper, safe or necessary way of disposing of intermediate level waste. I am supported in that argument by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and my hon. Friends who represent affected constituencies and who are present, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: If there is to be any storage of nuclear waste, the method must be absolutely safe. All of us would support my hon. Friend in that.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The core of our argument is our grave doubt whether near surface disposal facilities are safe for the purposes of keeping intermediate level nuclear waste. We are at one on that point because we do not believe that it is a safe system.
I recognise that some people will say that we are making narrow constituency points. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members deprecate that idea, and I hope to persuade them that that is not so. The argument of my constituents and of myself is backed by the great weight of informed opinion. Moreover, it is backed by past practice, and justified by policies that are being or are about to be implemented in most OECD nuclear nations.
Let us take first the report of the Select Committee. Hon. Members will bear in mind that without exception none of the Members of the Select Committee had a direct constituency angle to express. Their report is categoric in its terms. Paragraph 99 states:
The poor research in the United Kingdom means that it is impossible at this stage for us to recommend any disposal options with total confidence … We recommend that near surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes and must be fully engineered on a complete containment basis.
NIREX is suggesting that a near surface disposal facility should be used, not only for low level waste, but for intermediate level waste having a half life of 30 years. Therefore, NIREX's proposal flies directly in the fact of one of the major conclusions of the Select Committee's report. That brings me to my second point.
NIREX's proposals are contrary to what is becoming general practice in the nuclear nations. With the exception of the United States and France, all nuclear nations are proposing to store all nuclear waste material in deep geological sites. France has a near surface site at Centre de la Manche near Cherbourg. That site is disposing of intermediate level waste in an engineered container but the site is close to the sea. Therefore, should there be an accidental outflow of tainted material it will flow into the sea and be dispersed. For reasons appreciated by Lincolnshire Members, that is not true of Fulbeck.
In every other nuclear country—Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada and Finland—all nuclear waste material, low level or intermdiate level, will be disposed of in deep geological sites. These sites are usually thousands of feet below the surface and are protected from mankind by strata of rock. NIREX's proposals are directly contrary to what has become an accepted policy within all OECD nuclear countries.

Mr. David Alton: Is it not true that the United States is also looking at deep disposal sites? There is a proposed site at Hanford near Seattle, in the state of Washington. Therefore, the United States is moving towards deep geological sites for disposal rather than using the option that NIREX has put forward.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. However I wish to be strictly accurate. In the case of the United States and France intermediate waste has been, and continues to be, disposed of at near surface disposal sites.
It is frequently argued either expressly or by implication that there is no alternative to near surface disposal sites. That is manifestly untrue. West Germany has a deep geological site in Lower Saxony at Gorleben which is in the process of construction and will be ready to receive nuclear waste shortly. However, no sites in Britain are being examined for that purpose, despite the fact that the Select Committee on the Environment was informed by no less a person than Dr. Feates of the Department of the Environment that some 15 per cent. of this country may be suitable for the disposal of high level radioactive waste.
There are other methods by which this problem can be resolved. There is the seabed option which could use any of three methods. First, there is the method of using oil drilling techniques to drill deep boreholes into the continental shelf, where the waste could be stored. Secondly, waste could be disposed into the deep ocean seabed either by drilling or by emplacement. Thirdly, material could be disposed of in horizontal tunnels and caverns excavated under the seabed and from the coast.
These are no idle or academic dreams and they are already being brought into existence. In Sweden, for example, there is a planned operational site at Forsmark on the east Baltic coast. In three years' time that site will be ready to receive low level and intermediate level waste. The technology is already available for implementing the oil drilling option. The problem is not technology but the fact that the nuclear industry has been so slow to investigate the possibilities that technology offers. I was concerned to learn from paragraph 93 of the Select Committee on the Environment's report that it was not until March 1985 that NIREX placed a contract for examining the oil drilling option.
There are alternative methods for disposing of low level and intermediate waste. The fact that NIREX does not come forward with alternatives to the near surface system does not reflect any lack of available alternatives but reflects the failure on its part to follow any sustained and consistent research into the alternatives. We have the right to expect that research. As long ago as 1976 the Flowers report said:
the United Kingdom now appears conspicuously backward among nations with significant nuclear programmes in its consideration and funding of studies related to geological disposal of the radioactive waste".
I note with concern that the Select Committee echoes that view when it states:
All that we have seen confirms that impression, save that we are now nearly ten years further behind.
It is wrong to suppose that there is an immediate and pressing need to find another site for the disposal of intermediate nuclear waste which in any way overrides the paramount need for appropriate research. There is no such pressing and urgent need. It is clear that we have enough capacity for a long time. The life of the facility at Drigg can be greatly extended if the operators on that site would show more discrimination as to the volume and type of material that they store there. If the operators could be induced to use the modern techniques of incineration and compaction, Drigg could carry on longer still. Those materials which are not suitable for Drigg can be stored at existing facilities, most notably at Sellafield, until proper alternatives can be devised.
I do not believe that a near surface disposal system for the disposal of intermediate level nuclear waste will ever be willingly accepted by my constituents at Fulbeck—or indeed by any other community. That is a fact that the House and, as a consequence, the country has to face. The scheme put forward by NIREX is contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is contrary to the weight of informed opinion and it is contrary to what we have learnt in the past. It ignores the existence and the establishment of alternative methods of disposal. It reflects a certain complacency, a lack of sensitivity, a lack of research and, dare I say, a certain incompetence on the part of the British nuclear industry.
Those of us who represent the people of Bradwell, South Killingholme, Elstow and Fulbeck—we are all present today—will not deliver the British nuclear industry from the consequences of its own omissions or the consequences of its past errors.

Mr. David Alton: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He said that there is no pressing or urgent need to take decisions on the NIREX sites. I agree that it is too soon to take these far-reaching decisions, and I have the feeling that we are being bounced into taking decisions that will have enormous consequences for the communities to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about some of the other longer-term options. He mentioned Forsmark, and I had the privilege, as a member of the Environment Select Committee, of visiting Forsmark with the other members of the Committee. In the longer-term we shall have to examine such options, although I plead with the


industry not to try to reinvent the wheel. Much work is being done elsewhere in the world, and we should examine that carefully before we embark on our own projects.
In terms of geography we are a small country, and one that is congested, with many people living near areas where nuclear waste may be dumped. I suspect that wherever sites are suggested, whether they are shallow sites close to the surface or deep disposal sites, the same arguments of opposition will be advanced. Despite his support for deep geological sites if they had been suggested for his constituency, I suspect that the hon. Member for Grantham would have been advancing the same sort of arguments today. The acronym used in the United States, NIMBY—not in my back yard—would probably apply to any of us if the proposal were to put either a shallow or a deep disposal site near our constituencies.
One or two hon. Members would favour a different acronym, INMBYP—in my back yard please. They take the view, because of job implications in their constituency, that because many people are employed by the industry they have to support it. I can understand that, and will leave those Members to make their own arguments. Some hon. Members are concerned about environmental implications and others about job implications. These things cross party barriers.
This is a timely debate because yesterday the report of the Select Committee on the Environment was published. I regret that we did not go beyond our remit of looking simply at nuclear waste. We should challenge all the assumptions on which our industry has been based. We should be raising questions today about whether we need to maintain and expand the existing nuclear industry at all. That is why I entered many dissenting notes to the report. In my first amendment I said:
the Government should set up an immediate independent inquiry into the continuation of the civil nuclear programme, and that this inquiry shall be instructed to take due note of our comments on the undesirability of nuclear waste.
We need to look at the question whether we should produce the waste in the first place. I do not wish to detract from an excellent report, to which I was happy to put my signature, but that limited brief meant that we were able to discuss only such matters as the management of radioactive waste, health and dose limitation, reprocessing, the public, institutions and the law, without looking at whether we should be producing nuclear waste at all. While I welcome the two sections of the report dealing with reprocessing, and institutions and the law, nevertheless I feel that elsewhere the report is both complacent and inadequate. I would particularly pinpoint the management of radioactive waste, the effects on the health of the public and the general concern of the public over the way information is given to them about the nuclear industry.
The Committee heard a number of conflicting statements from the industry about health effects on those living close to nuclear reactors and to people who might be affected by the seepage of nuclear waste. BNFL behaved despicably when it fed wrong information to the Black committee. That resulted in a number of conclusions being arrived at by the House and by the Departments of Energy and of the Environment. The Black report needs to be reassessed in the light of information now put forward by a number of outside sources.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his words? Is he saying that BNFL deliberately misled the Select Committee? If so, is he sure of his evidence?

Mr. Alton: I am saying that the evidence that has come out since the Select Committee considered this question implies that either BNFL did not know, and if it did not know it should have known, or that it deliberately misled the Committee, which would be of great concern.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman used the words "acted despicably". That presumes that he knew what happened. Would he care to qualify what he said?

Mr. Alton: I cannot really qualify it. The chairman of BNFL, Mr. Allday, said:
I am satisfied that the safety of the environment around Sellafield is very, very good indeed.
I do not share that view. Wrong information was given, and it may have been given deliberately, both to the Committee and to the House. If it was given intentionally, BNFL acted despicably. Figures reveal that in the Seascale ward, in the small village near Sellafield, the area has 24 times the regional average for leukaemia. That is according to James Cutler of Yorkshire Television. Considerable concern has been raised not just by James Cutler but by many other people about the incidence of cancer among people living near nuclear installations and in areas where there could be seepage of radioactivity into the environment.
That is why I was disappointed that Labour and Conservative Members of the Committee were unable to support my recommendation
that the Government establish an inquiry to investigate the incidence of cancer around all nuclear establishments, examining the medical records of those working in, or living near to, nuclear establishments, and that such an inquiry should not repeat the logical and statistical errors of the Black report.
There are clear links between the nuclear industry and the cranking up of the nuclear ratchet in the development of our nuclear missile programme. Otherwise, there would not be such a keen desire to proceed with the construction of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. That is being built at a cost of some £1·3 billion of public money, and was started in 1978. I am glad that the Select Committee has said that THORP should be put in mothballs, because it would be environmentally damaging, uneconomic and unnecessary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman qualify what he has said? Is that precisely what the Select Committee has said?

Mr. Alton: The Select Committee has made it clear that, unless arguments can be brought to the contrary, THORP should be put into mothballs. I am satisfied—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is very important to me, as I have connections with the nuclear industry by way of my constituency. It is important that we destroy the myths surrounding the industry. It is important that we have facts, not misrepresentations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue, but this is a matter of argument, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Alton: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Many


people in his constituency are employed in the nuclear industry and he is concerned about their future. It would be strange if he were not. However, he must also accept that other hon. Members have reservations about the operation of a reprocessing plant at Sellafield and believe that it should not proceed. When the original vote on it was taken in 1978, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who is now a Minister at the Department of Energy, the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is a former Minister, together with many Labour Members, voted against the construction which was opposed by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House about the findings of the Committee, of which we are both members, particularly as he always displayed himself, if I may say so as Chairman of the Committee, as a concerned member of it. However, his overriding concern was to see the complete abandonment of the nuclear industry in this country. The Committee could not look at this, not because it wished to restrict its remit, but because it had no power to do so because it was concerned not with energy policy but with environmental policy. The environmental policy was concerned with the disposal of radioactive waste, not with whether there should be nuclear power stations in the country.
On the question of medical evidence, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is an axiom of the Committee that we reach opinions or conclusions only upon evidence that has been adduced before us, and we do not seek to make assumptions outside that. Every recommendation that we have made is founded firmly and solidly upon evidence that we have received.
With regard to THORP, our recommendation is simply that inasmuch as the economic considerations that led to a particular policy in 1978 have changed, perhaps one should reappraise whether it is necessary to continue with reprocessing, but against those economic factors one has to take into account the employment effects that abandoning THORP would have. It is a difficult decision to take. Now is the time to undertake a reappraisal, but no more than a reappraisal at this stage.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As usual, he has been adept in the way that he has put qualifying remarks fairly to the House. They do not represent my views. As he rightly says, both sides gave a considerable amount in order to be able to arrive at a unanimous report. I have put my view to the House.
I take exception to one point that the hon. Gentleman has just made in connection with implications to health. He will recall that I moved an entire new chapter to the report on the dangers of radioactive discharges as they affect people. He will also recall that we were given evidence in the course of the inquiry about the benefits of the new SIXEP plant at Sellafield, and about how it would improve the environment and the prospects for local people's health. We were given evidence that the expenditure of £0·25 billion would save two lives—that was a statement by BNFL. I made the point to the Committee, and I make it to the House now, that I find it strange that the health benefits of SIXEP could be argued

with such precision. I think that it demonstrates that the industry once again has put its information and its case across to the public in an appalling way.
It is clear that many Members wish to argue about the effects of nuclear waste and the dumping and disposal of nuclear waste in their areas and to put their cases to the House. I do not intend to detain the House for much longer.
I wish to touch on one other question only, the disposal of nuclear waste into the Irish sea. I hope that there can be unanimity in the House that that is a totally unacceptable practice. At Sellafield we must move to zero discharges as soon as possible—I would hope within two years. Every pressure possible should be put on the industry. It should at least consider the effects on Anglo-Irish relations, if nothing else. Already representations have been made to the Government by the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, when he was here only 10 days ago, about the real worries and concerns on the other side of the Irish sea. The same is true for those of us who represent constituencies on this side of St. George's channel. There is considerable anxiety throughout the north-west of England about this.
It is clear that the industry is open to considerable criticism. Hon. Gentlemen are right to have raised this important issue, but they must now accept the logic of their position. If nuclear waste is undesirable in their back yard, they ought to ask why it is suitable for someone else's.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for providing the opportunity for us to debate this matter today. If I may say so, in a speech of rare distinction—clear, compelling, eloquent—he would have completely convinced me, if I was not already convinced.
I am glad too not merely for my own reasons, which I hope to deploy before the House, but for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), who is here in his place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, we all know that, while, by long convention, a Chief Whip is unable to express his views and those of his constituents in the House, his silence today must not be construed as an expression of indifference or inactivity.
Fortunately, outside the House, a Chief Whip is not bound by a vow of silence on planning matters, and my right hon. Friend has already expressed his total opposition to the prospct, remote though it may be—and remoter still by the end of the debate, I hope—that Bradwell in his constituency be a site for the disposal of intermediate and low-level radioactive waste. Moreover, in this, he has the full support of his parliamentary colleagues in Essex and that of Essex county council. My right hon. Friend has told me of meetings that he has had in his constituency, including one in Bradwell itself, where some 250 very angry constituents expressed their total opposition to the proposal. I can understand their anger, as does my right hon. Friend. He is in complete sympathy with their views. I understand that he has further meetings planned.
One reason is that my right hon. Friend's constituents, like him, are aware that Bradwell does not begin to meet the criteria set down by NIREX itself for a site with the greatest potential for a deep-trench repository based on clay. In its information to local authorities, NIREX says that the four factors likely to exert a significant influence


upon site choice are population density, accessibility, conservation and geology. On those criteria alone, the Bradwell site ought never to have been included.
But the case does not rest there, as I shall presently show. Let me briefly outline my right hon. Friend's deeply held objections to Bradwell being chosen as a site. First, it is close to areas of rapid population growth—Colchester, Maldon, Rochford, Castle Point and Southend. Over the past 10 years, our county has experienced faster than average population growth, and the trend will continue well into the next century.
Secondly, rail and road access links with the proposed site are totally inadequate.
Thirdly, if by conservation NIREX is referring to the preservation of the environment, then the site is totally unsuitable for reasons which have not been taken into account, notably that the area is subject to flooding and has other inherent drawbacks which make it totally unsuitable for the disposal by burial of any kind of toxic waste, let alone nuclear waste.
Fourthly, the geological evidence in the possession of my right hon. Friend, which I have seen too, because it has been available in the geological survey for Essex since 1980, makes it crystal clear that the site is unsuitable. The water table is very high. The London clay which underlies Bradwell varies in depth below the surface from 3 to 55 m, but only 34 m of this is true clay. Beneath the clay lie significant deposits of chalk which are a valuable aquifer for the supply of water to the west. The possibility, however remote, that contaminated water could pass from the clay to the chalk is clearly an unacceptable risk.
There are, however, two considerations of paramount importance which NIREX could have discovered for itself if it had wished, or had there been proper consultation with the Essex county council. These concern not merely Bradwell but the whole of the Essex coast down to my constituency in the Thames estuary.
First, there is the risk of flooding. I had already been in Parliament some time when, just over 33 years ago, the North sea struck with fury down the whole of the east coast. In the disaster that followed, 119 people lost their lives in Essex alone, half of them at Canvey Island in my constituency. I have a vivid recollection of what happened. I was on Canvey on 31 January 1953 a few hours before the water struck just before midnight. The sea burst through our defences, flooding 12,356 Essex homes. In the next few hours, 21,000 people were made homeless. Over 31,000 were to qualify as flood victims and received help from the Lord Mayor's distress fund. Incidentally, at that time the Lord Mayor was a distinguished Member of this House. Almost the whole of the Essex coastline, from Harwich in the north to the Thames estuary, was inundated. It included the Dengie peninsula, the area where the Bradwell nuclear power station and the proposed waste disposal site are located.
I find it incredible that a site for the storage of nuclear waste should be established in this vulnerable area. In the opening words of her gripping account of "The Great Tide", our county historian, Hilda Grieve, wrote:
Essex and the sea have been antagonists for centuries.
It is ironic in the extreme that we are still worried about the weakness of our sea defences in this part of Essex. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will take due note of this. We are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of our sea defences, particularly in the area from Harwich to the constituency

of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon. I suggest to the Government that it should be a high priority to mend those defences before embarking on a crackpot scheme of this kind.
What happened in 1953 along the Dengie peninsula? Close to the proposed site the sea walls gave way and the angry waters poured through. In Hilda Grieve's eloquent words:
The jaws of the North sea had opened wide and engulfed the walls as effortlessly and indifferently as the great fish swallowed Jonah.
Can anyone be sure that the great tide will not return? Will there never be a repetition of what happened in 1953? How safe is the Essex coastline, particularly the area to which I have referred? London is now protected by the Thames barrier, one of the technical marvels of the age. Canvey Island is now safe from flooding. Its sea walls have been raised twice since 1953 and it is safer now than it has ever been in its history. But what about the Bradwell area? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has thought about the Bradwell area, but I hope that when she replies to the debate she will be able to assure me that resources will be found to ensure proper coastal protection before any order is introduced.
However, a second serious danger must be dragged out into the open. Bradwell lies on a geological fault line which stretches right down from that part of Essex to my constituency. This has given rise, down the centuries, to a number of minor earthquakes. The most serious of these was what the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's safety and reliability directorate has described as "the great British earthquake" of 1884. It was centred on Peldon, which is about four miles from Bradwell. There is an account of it in the Alderson report which was published as recently as December 1982 by the safety and reliability directorate of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. It said:
At about 9.20 am on the morning of Tuesday, 22 April 1884 an earthquake occurred, centred in the south-eastern corner of Essex. The area most strongly affected included the villages of Abberton and Peldon lying south of Colchester. The city of Colchester itself was extensively damaged during this event which was felt as far away as Exeter … over 1,200 houses had sufficient damage to require assistance in terms of grants for essential repair work, of these some 400 were in Colchester alone. Thirty-one churches suffered extensive damage necessitating repair and minor reconstruction. Reports varied on the number of deaths due to this event, but it would appear that at least three people died".
That happened during the lifetime of my grandparents.
There are also records of earlier earthquakes in the area. There was one in 1692 near Colchester when buildings were damaged. There was another in 1750 which was felt in the Bradwell area, and another in 1755 was recorded in Rochford, a district which I represented in this House for 19 years.
Had NIREX bothered to consult the Essex county council and its archivists, or even me, or any other Essex Member of Parliament who had represented an Essex constituency for any length of time, it could have been told about this. But there was no proper consultation. The first intimation to the county council that NIREX was looking for a site did not even mention Essex. That led one official to say, "This is suspicious. I bet that NIREX has us in mind." Incidentally, NIREX seems to have been completely unaware of the Alderson report. It seems that in this great scientific set-up the left hand does not know what the right hand has been doing.
The significance of all this is considerable. A qualified geologist employed by the Essex county council has confirmed that the proposed site lies on the fault line. She is of the opinion that the layer of soft sediment near the surface would in fact amplify any shock waves. Thus, there is a risk that any seismic disturbance would be enhanced in its effect by that alone.
I am also advised that basic information about the foundations of the Bradwell nuclear power station has been denied to the Essex county council. I do not wish to be alarmist, but the power station adjoins the proposed disposal site. It is inconceivable that such information could be withheld from any public inquiry, but it should not be necessary where public safety is concerned to withhold it now.
On behalf of my Essex colleagues and my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, I must ask that this information is made avaiable to the Essex county council now. It must be made available not at a public inquiry but now. I ask for it to be made available, even if NIREX decides that discretion over the proposed disposal site is the better part of its misplaced valour and withdraws the proposal.
Let me put this in perspective. The nuclear power station is already there. It is feeding electricity into the national grid. I happen to believe that nuclear power generated at carefully chosen and safe sites is good for the nation. But a nuclear power station has a limited life and is not to be regarded as a permanency. What should concern us here is the burial close by of nuclear waste, which must inevitably continue to present a hazard for decades to come. If the site is disturbed in any way—by excessive flooding or by seismic disturbance—that should concern us all. It certainly concerns the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, and it concerns me. For the people of Essex this constitutes virtually a permanent hazard. As such, it is simply not acceptable.
I have one further observation to make. We are told that the site is for the disposal of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. Let us not be mesmerised by words. What, pray, is the definition of "intermediate" nuclear waste? In what respect does it differ from high-risk nuclear waste? I am advised that the difference between high-level nuclear waste and intermediate nuclear waste is that the former generates a great deal of heat; but all such waste emits radioactivity over a very long time span. The impression that is given is that intermediate waste is not very hazardous, although it is prudent to bury it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham went into the matter in great detail and described the conditions for the disposal of radioactive material of this kind. It should be disposed of in dry conditions, deep down in the bowels of the earth, if it cannot be disposed of in the Atlantic trench.
My hon. Friend dealt effectively with the point. To dispose of the waste at Bradwell, where there is a high water table, where there is an aquifer supplying water to the communities to the west, where there is flooding from time to time, and where the sea defences have been neglected, is madness. It must not be.
I should have thought it prudent not to go ahead with boring tests and not to go to a public inquiry but to stop the waste of public expenditure now, and to exclude the area from any order. I am not referring to any other

locations; my hon. Friends will make their own cases in due course. I am talking about something that I know is a hazard, and one that confronts our people now.
So I have one last question. What is the point of embarking upon a costly investigation of a site so palpably unsuitable, which must be followed by a long public inquiry? Why waste public money on such a farcical exercise? Other factors should perhaps be taken into account. I do not wish to prolong my speech, but hitherto the debate about nuclear waste disposal techniques has been restricted to matters of physics, chemistry and geology. There is a wealth of knowledge within that framework, but environmental science is discovering new facts which must not be ignored.
A wet environment, such as the Bradwell site, will not be a dead environment; it will be inhabited. Current research in microbiology shows that there is a new factor here to reckon with. Has there been any consultation with the Natural Environment Research Council about the microbiological implications of storing radioactive material in wet, underground sites? I put the question deliberatly because I am aware of research that is taking place. Whether NIREX has caught up with it or has simply suppressed the facts, I do not know, but the question must be asked.
My advice to my hon. Friend on the proposed order is to tear it up and start again. When the Secretary of State is considering the matter he should also give thought to the urgent need to repair the sea defences in Essex.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At least four hon. Members with strong constituency interests wish to speak. The debate must end at 5.30 pm. I hope that they and the Front Benches will bear that in mind.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a great privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who must be congratulated on his initiative. I have considerable admiration for the forthright way in which my hon. friend the Member for Grantham has represented the interests of his constituents. Although my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary may not speak in the House, the whole House will support the efforts he has been making on behalf of his constituents in Colchester, South and Maldon. He has made his representations properly.
I speak with great feeling on the issue because, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, we had information about South Killingholme as far back as April or May. Of course, it was denied. Department of Environment Ministers were unco-operative about confirming the rumours that abounded. The Minister of State, when he must have known that my constituency was being seriously considered, led me to believe that it was just one of 2,000 or 3,000 different sites that were being remotely considered. So I totally support the case that has been made outside the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for


Grantham, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), who has had to live with the issue for some two years. I know what he has gone through during that time and what my other right hon. and hon. Friends have had to go through for the past two weeks, after the announcement was sprung upon them with no consultation.
In view of the Select Committee report which came out yesterday, there is every case for the proposal to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is more to me than an hon. Friend; she is also a friend. I hope that she remains so during the difficult months when the matter is being discussed. I hope she will tell her colleagues in the Department of the Environment that if their comments yesterday about the constructive nature of the report are to be taken seriously, they must think carefully before they proceed with the order.
I understand that yesterday the Minister of State, who is responsible for the matter in the Department, welcomed the report and said that it was a useful contribution. If his words are to have any meaning, he should not bring forward the order at the end of April, as he said in a parliamentary answer to me a couple of days ago that he still intends to do. If he means to do that, he might just as well say publicly now that he has no regard for the important and detailed report of the Select Committee.
We are basing our arguments on the well-researched recommendations of an all-party Select Committee. In paragraph 99 of its report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham indicated, the Select Committee said:
The poor state of research in the United Kingdom means that it is impossible at this stage for us to recommend any disposal option with total confidence … Near surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes".
I do not agree even with that, but the implication is clear. On the terms of the report there is no case for the special development order for the four sites that are to be considered for the disposal of intermediate waste.
I do not want to go over old ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has eloquently indicated the alternatives which should be considered. The message from the Select Committee's report to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and her colleagues in the Department of the Environment is simple: no work has been done on alternative ways of dealing with nuclear waste.
We all accept that nuclear waste arises and has to be disposed of. According to paragraph 114 of the Select Committee report, it was indeed the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Lord Marshall himself, who pointed out that
the sense of urgency which the Flowers Commission engendered in the industry to formulate disposal policy is no longer so pressing.
I have been privileged to have the support locally of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in the arguments adduced against South Killingholme. I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point to one thing: I accept totally that there is no case for Bradwell; for similar reasons there is no case for South Killingholme, which also suffered from the floods in 1953. If my right hon. Friend represented Mid-Bedfordshire or Grantham, with the knowledge of this subject which he displayed this afternoon, he would be

able to adduce the very arguments that he used in his excellent speech against all four sites. On my way home to my own constituency I drive through the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, and within one mile of Fulbeck, before arriving at my home three miles from South Killingholme, where I have lived for the past seven years.
We have a text before us that has been well researched and well argued. Based on facts, the Environment Select Committee has put forward several recommendations.
I acknowledge your injunction to confine my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to draw the House's attention to paragraphs 277, 279 and 280 of the Select Committee's report, and especially to the Committee's view of NIREX—this unaccountable, unelected body that has been stumbling up and down the country, causing the most terrible distress to local people at public meetings. The NIREX representatives have absolutely no idea how to treat local people. I understand that the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon have experienced the disgraceful way in which NIREX has presented its very bad case, as have I.
The Select Committee's recommendations regarding NIREX are very simple and straightforward and should be honoured by the Department of the Environment. They are:
We therefore recommend that the Secretary of State for the Environment should hold the Government's single special share in NIREX … rather than the Secretary of State for Energy.
We therefore recommend that the Department of the Environment should clarify the lines of communication and accountability between themselves and NIREX. In due course NIREX should be made directly answerable to the Department of the Environment".
I am getting fed up with my hon. Friend the Minister of State answering questions which I put to him about this matter by saying that it is a matter for NIREX. It is not a matter for NIREX. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment and the Minister here at this Dispatch Box. I shall get very angry if I get answers like that to any more parliamentary questions.
My final point, which supports all that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, is here in the report:
We therefore recommend that site selection criteria should be established in advance and published for each type of waste disposal route likely to be developed. Thereafter, the Department of the Environment should ensure that any possible future disposal sites identified by NIREX should satisfy the site selection criteria for that disposal option. Thus responsibility for final short listing … should effectively rest with the Department of the Environment rather than NIREX.
That is the battle that I have had for the past six months and I am delighted to be joined in that battle by such formidable allies as the Patronage Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. We shall defeat the proposals at all four sites. I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that we intend, all of us, to win.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief because I know that others of my hon. Friends wish to speak. The strong feelings expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will


be reflected by all right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about these matters. He passes through my constituency. My constituency and Elstow were first singled out, and singled out is the right phrase, two and a half years ago by NIREX without any proper forethought.
I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who feels as strongly as I do on this. The deep anxiety which is felt by my constituents, and those in surrounding districts has been felt for two and a half years. It is not the view of cranks, but the view of sensible constituents of all persuasions who have thought the matter through. They ask themselves how NIREX can propose to put such a repository, as it calls this dump, two and a half miles from a major centre of population in a crowded county with a constantly growing population, when its first criterion for choosing sites, which it now announces, is population density. That is to turn logic on its head.
We recognise that a solution must be found, but I should like to draw attention to four points in the Select Committee report. The first is the wise advice to be found in paragraph 58. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on initiating this debate with a formidable and well thought out speech. Like me, he draws attention to these words:
It is essential that research and development is carried out well in advance.
It was not.
The kind of urgency suggested by NIREX's haphazard activities with regard to Billingham and Elstow is very unhelpful and can only fuel the public's anxiety and distrust. In addition, NIREX's rush risks the loss of what might be geologically prime sites.
Those of us who have lived with this for two and a half years probably realise that it has lost possibly the best geological site, at least for low level waste, in the country—the site under Billingham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not suggesting that it should go there, but NIREX rushed, and the site was rejected on wholly emotional grounds before any proper consideration had been given to it.
I have said for some years that NIREX should split low and intermediate level nuclear waste. I am glad to see that well argued and reflected in the report. If any consideration is to continue to be given to the dumping of waste in what is now called near surface trenches and used to be called shallow land burial—I am not quite sure what the difference is—it should be low level only. My hon. Friend the Minister should remember that there is only one such repository in Europe—Centre de la Manche. It does not rely on absolute containment. It has fail-safe drainage to the sea, which is a formidable difference. I am not saying that that is the right solution, but to rely on absolute containment when it is admitted that the site is waterlogged and has room for that water to escape only on to the surface or to leach down to the aquifers is plainly a wrong solution.

Mr. Alton: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the publicity photograph of Drigg that has been published in the Select Committee's report. Surely that is an example of the worst possible way in which to dispose of low level nuclear waste.

Mr. Lyell: If that be true I know not. I went to Drigg, as did the hon. Gentleman, and it was sworn to me that it was perfectly safe, which shows how confident I am in NIREX, following the report.
There are other sensible solutions which should be considered. I believe that the Select Committee recognises that time is on our side, which it is not in this debate. We should consider dry storage, proper compaction and, above all, the formation of deep mine cavities, perhaps under the sea. When we have had proper and open research and debate, an idea should be proposed which can carry scientific and public confidence.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall speak very briefly, because, as has been said by another Liverpool Member, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), in whose constituency I live, we in our area are deeply concerned about radioactive discharges into the Irish sea. The Irish sea is slowly but surely becoming a sort of nuclear cesspool. We know that every two years the Irish sea is flushed out, but we also know that a deposit is left. We are trying to get rid of the old problems in the Mersey, and so on, yet we are faced with this new problem, which is growing all the time to an extent that is worrying our people deeply.
It is not only we who are worried. There was a debate yesterday in the Irish Parliament on this issue. The Irish Government are not calling for Sellafield to be closed down, and nor am I, but we have to face what is happening to our areas, and the whole process needs to be looked at again. Do we really need to bring in nuclear waste for reprocessing? Is it sensible, is it safe, is it good for our people? Surely we have to look at this whole thing again.
At its last annual conference the Labour party passed a resolution on future nuclear policy. My party is concerned about this issue. We are not saying that the thousands of workers at Sellafield have to be thrown out of work. We know that a new plant is being built, which will be ready, we are told, in 1990. Be that as it may, this matter is of such concern to us in our area that we say that it has to stop, and that it has to stop now. We cannot allow this build-up, which is causing immense problems for all of us. We are worried about it, we are concerned about it, and we want to see something done quickly to deal with the matter.

Dr. David Clark: The last few words of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) sum up the mood of the people of this country. They are deeply concerned about the handling of nuclear waste and want something done about it very quickly. It is our duty to try to ensure that the Government and Government agencies do everything possible to see to it that this problem is tackled responsibly.
I very much welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and I equally welcome the report of the Select Committee. The only unsatisfactory point about this debate today is its brevity. I look to the Government for an assurance that we will have a full day's debate on the Select Committee report, because it is of considerable importance. I am aware that many Government Members who wish to participate in the debate have not been able to do so. I hope that very soon


we shall have a debate on the special development order by which means the Government will bypass the local planning authorities on the four specific sites.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, we are all deeply concerned. Whether it is a civil nuclear engineering problem, or a military one, we have to face the fact that even if we decommissioned every nuclear power station tomorrow—and I am not saying that we should—we shall still have to face the problem of nuclear waste. We expect this problem to be tackled in a much more sensible way than it has been tackled so far and we commend the report to the attention of hon. Members. I am sure that they are reading the report, but it is difficult to comprehend everything. The report is right when it says that we are literally 40 years behind in the way in which we are tackling the nuclear waste problem.
Many hon. Members have put points relating to their own constituencies. Let me emphasise the fact, because it needs emphasising and re-emphasising, that there are 5,000 sites in this country where we use radioactive material. Much of that activity is beneficial to us. I shall cite simply the radium treatment in our major hospitals and the battle against cancer. All the material involved in that procedure has to be dumped, and I do not think that we can store it all above ground. It may well be that very low-level material will have to be stored in trenches.
Whatever decisions are made, we must ensure that if mistakes are found the situation is retrievable. I think that that is what worries many Government Members. They feel that trenches and concrete bunkers will be placed in their constituencies and that, if it is found that a mistake has been made, there will be no way of retrieving the situation.
I take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) on one point, and I think that he would expect me to do so. In a sense I am agreeing with him, because I feel that NIREX has been insensitive in the way in which it has gone about this operation. I agree that NIREX should have a much wider membership and ought not to be the narrow grouping that it is. The anhydrite mine at Billingham may be an ideal site on purely technical grounds. However, we are dealing, not with a technical issue, but with an emotional one, and I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. It does not make sense to dispose of waste under a major conurbation, with a major chemical complex above it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) would have been most active if he had been here.
I think that there is agreement, and that the message from the House to the Minister is that we are not convinced. We have seen the Committee's report, we want to study it, we want a full day's debate on it and we want the Government to take a number of the issues seriously. I think that almost all hon. Members agree with the Select Committee's report that our approach to the dumping of nuclear waste has been "amateurish and haphazard" and that we have tried to do it on a shoestring. I impress upon the Minister the fact that the people of this country do not expect the problem of nuclear waste to be tackled in such a miserly fashion, although perhaps the Committee used the wrong expression when it talked about Rolls-Royce, because that implies cost. I believe that what the report is saying is that we should have the best possible means of tackling this problem of nuclear waste.
It is a matter of deep regret that one of the first things that the Government did on taking office was to stop the

deep geological search for sites for radioactive waste. I am not saying that that was the way, but we should have continued with that research, and we have lost five years because of that mistaken decision. We are talking about 200 or 300 years, and we cannot see that far ahead. It may well be that we shall find that we have made mistakes, so whatever course of action we follow, it must be reversible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I want to start by saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for raising this issue today and making such a powerful and well-argued case. This is the first of probably a number of occasions on which we shall discuss what is clearly a very important matter.
I am sorry that not all the hon. Members whose constituencies are involved in this matter were called, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who I know were anxious to have a say and whose constituencies will most certainly be affected in the same way as those of many other hon. Members who have expressed very real fears during the debate.
I should like to extend my gratitude to my colleagues from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their support throughout the whole of this debate.
I must make it absolutely clear that the Government take the public concern on this issue very seriously indeed. I am extremely grateful to the House for the high level of understanding that hon. Members who have spoken on this matter have brought to the debate today. I certainly appreciate why so many of the constituents of my hon. Friends and of other hon. Members have been alarmed by the recent announcement by NIREX of the four potential sites for the disposal of radioactive waste, and some things need to be said to put that announcement in context. I hope that I can allay some of the fears that have been so eloquently expressed.
It is important to emphasise four general points. First, the Government have a range of strict controls on radioactive waste disposal. In exercising those controls, our paramount concern will be public health and safety. Secondly, only one of the four sites announced is needed, and only if the Government's controls and requirements can be satisfied will one be developed. Thirdly, we shall try to ensure that the process of selecting and evaluating a site is as open as possible. Fourthly, we shall ensure that any radioactive doses from a disposal site are insignificant.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: My hon. Friend has outlined four points which the Government will bear in mind, but may I add a fifth point? Whatever may be the truth or the facts of the dangers or lack of dangers surrounding the disposal of nuclear waste, until public fears can be allayed, it will be impossible to persuade those who live in the areas affected that this is a satisfactory or safe method of disposal. Unless the general public accepts that, the Government have no alternative but to accept the forthright opposition of Members of Parliament who are affected by the decisions of NIREX.

Mrs. Rumbold: I fully understand and accept my hon. Friend's point. It is essential that the Government, NIREX and all those involved with radioactive waste disposal have a better understanding of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham outlined three key areas to which he and his constituents object. He said that the geology at Fulbeck is inappropriate for waste disposal and that there is a lack of communications, as he sees it. They are two of the major criteria that NIREX will use. His main objection was that near-surface disposal systems are not a safe, necessary or proven way of disposing of radioactive waste. That is the point that I must answer. My hon. Friend asked whether alternatives to near-surface disposal had been considered. The study of the best practicable environmental option, which was published today, considered alternatives to the near-surface disposal of waste. It examined deep disposal on land or in tunnels under the sea. It considered disposal in bore holes drilled into the coastal seabed, disposal in the deep ocean and long-term monitored storage. It concluded that near-surface disposal is the best practical environmental option for low-level wastes and some short-lived, intermediate-level wastes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the way in which other countries practise or plan near-surface disposal of low-level waste. He mentioned the French site at Centre de la Manche. Canada also practises such disposal and the option is being considered in Japan. Much research has been undertaken nationally and internationally into the seabed option. This relates to the eventual disposal of high-level waste under the seabed. NIREX recently commissioned two feasibility studies into the disposal of waste under the seabed, and that option is also being considered as a possible way of disposing of longer-lived, intermediate-level wastes. However, some significant legal uncertainties and problems with international agreements must be overcome before any such action could be implemented. We shall consider that recommendation carefully.
Any disposal in or under the seabed would require a licence from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Food and Environment Protection Act. The legal position on sub-seabed disposal is extremely complex. There is as yet no agreement among the contracting parties to the London dumping convention on whether the matter falls within its remit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made a powerful speech. I couple his anxieties with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), which I share and understand fully. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made some telling points about the criteria upon which NIREX makes its suggestions for suitable sites. He mentioned population, accessibility, conservation and geology. Of course, all those matters will be revealed in the general geological investigations that have been proposed by NIREX, and all those considerations will be subject to full consultation through public inquiries. We have commissioned research by the Natural Environment Research Council on the potential role of microbiological processes in releasing radioactivity at a wet disposal site. I assure hon. Members that the results of the research will be taken fully into account in

assessing the suitability of any site for radioactive waste disposal. I shall pass my right hon. Friend's request for information on the foundations of Bradwell power station to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
NIREX carried out exhaustive studies before selecting those sites. It could not have consulted county councils before announcing its choice. I understand that it considered several hundred sites; had it consulted the councils involved, unnecessary anxiety would have been caused in many places that were not chosen. Hon. Members will understand that point.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to meet all the points that I raised, but was NIREX aware that Bradwell is on a fault line and that seismic disturbance has been a factor in the mind of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority? Was NIREX aware of the history of flooding in the area?

Mrs. Rumbold: If it was not aware, I am sure that it will soon become aware of the fact when it carries out its geological investigations.
I assure hon. Members of the importance that the Government attach to openness in the investigations. We wish to be as open as possible at every stage, especially during consultation.
It is important to mention Government control. Hon. Members do not always appreciate that NIREX and the Department of the Environment are separate organisations. I stress the rigorous controls to which the NIREX proposals will be subject from the Government. The nuclear industry is probably the most highly regulated in the country, and NIREX will be no exception. We shall provide an independent assessment of the results of the site investigations and of NIREX's proposal for the facilities. NIREX will require planning permission and, assuming that that is given, it will require an authorisation from the Department to dispose of wastes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) mentioned the nature of the waste to be disposed. At such a facility, NIREX will wish to dispose of low-level wastes and some shorter-lived, intermediate-level wastes. But I give the House a categoric assurance that neither high-level wastes nor longer-lived, intermediate-level wastes will be disposed of at such a facility. The Government would not allow a near-surface facility to be upgraded subsequently to higher-grade wastes, which involve a different and far greater risk.

Mr. Lyell: Would my hon. Friend consider carefully the wisdom of looking at the difference between very low-level waste, which might not frighten anyone—an alarm clock or a pair of gloves perhaps—low-level waste and intermediate-level waste? Separating those three might help the public a great deal.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. This is one of the points to which the Government will address themselves clearly.
I have little time left in which to deal with many of the points which have been made in this extremely interesting debate, but I want to assure the House that there will continue to be many opportunities for discussing this particular subject and for reaching a clearer understanding of it. It is of enormous concern to the whole country. I hope that this is the first of many such debates.

Local Housing Programmes

Mr. Chris Smith: I wish to begin my discussion of Government policy towards local housing programmes by highlighting the desperate need for good homes to rent for the people of my constituency and for many in other parts of the country. The impact of Government policy on the availability of good-quality homes to rent has been disastrous, as I hope to illustrate during the course of my speech. It is perhaps unnecessary to rehearse the bare statistics so often brought before the House, but some bear repeating because they draw attention to the scale of the problem that we face, in the country at large and in my constituency in particular.
We have the lowest number of home building starts since the 1920s. The housing investment programme allocations of most local authorities have been cut to a third of what they were in 1979. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation in squalid and inadequate hotels and boarding houses is being used for homeless families, particularly in London, but elsewhere as well. Many of our older council estates are in an appalling state of repair. Equally appalling is the rate of replacement of accommodation. At the current rate of replacement, it will take 625 years to replace the whole of Britain's housing stock.
This affects local statistics as well. In my constituency we have a waiting list in Islington of 7,000 families, and a transfer list, that is, those wishing to transfer to larger and better accommodation, of 9,000. The chances of these families getting the moves that many desperately need and want are very small indeed, and have been dramatically reduced over the past six or seven years because of the restrictions on the building, renovation and repair programmes that local authorities can carry out.
The human need behind those bare statistics, however, is greater and more tragic than any statistics can possibly indicate. This need is felt by families who have been forced to live in damp, overcrowded, mould-infested accommodation, up many flights of stairs, with lifts which do not work, even where they exist—the sort of conditions which, in a modern society, we ought not to impose on families, on children, on ordinary people whose only crime is that they cannot afford to buy property at the grossly inflated prices which would be necessary if they turned to the private market in my constituency.
We must also bear in mind the possibility of the employment that would be generated by a much more vigorous programme of building and repair work. A major programme of building and renovating houses would not only provide homes for people who need them, but would provide jobs for people who need them. For every one job directly created in the construction industry by investment in housebuilding and renovation, a further job is created in the ancillary trades supplying the builders. Virtually all those jobs would be created here in Britain rather than overseas. It makes economic sense from the Government's point of view. It makes employment sense, as well as making social sense in providing good homes for people who need them.
It is not just the need that exists, however, or just the jobs that could be created by good quality housing programmes. Nor is it just the way in which many Conservative Members, as we heard in the debate on the

Housing and Planning Bill, seek at every opportunity to do down the provision of council housing. They speak of vast, impersonal estates such as were put up in the fifties, sixties and early seventies. They speak in denigrating terms of the mistakes of the past. To a large extent, they are quite right to do so, because many mistakes were made, encouraged and fostered by Governments of all political complexions.
That does not mean that we should ignore the extremely good work carried out in the past 10 years by local authorities, particularly in the latter part of the seventies, when the mistakes of the past had been taken to heart and the lessons learnt. Good quality homes with gardens, which were liked and respected by the people who came to live in them, were built, and, in many cases, were created out of the older housing stock by the councils concerned.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the homes in Blair Close, Islington, for example. They have been built in only the past four years by the present Labour council on land which was on the point of being sold for private development by the Social Democratic council in 1982. The SDP had hijacked Islington for a fortunately brief period of six months. The land was due to be sold the day after the election for a new council in May 1982. Because the SDP was swept ingloriously from office on that occasion, the incoming council was able to revoke the sale of the land and went ahead with speed to build a very fine development of small houses around a close, which is much appreciated by the tenants now living there.
That is the kind of good quality accommodation which can be provided by local authorities now. Those who simply assume that all local authority housing development is like the junk estates of the past are unhappily and ungenerously doing down the quality which can be achieved by local authorities in modern days.
I turn now to the malign influence which present Government policy has on local authority housing programmes through the operation of the project control system. Many prospective tenants are disadvantaged because of the conditions and restraints of the project control system, operated by the Department of the Environment under the aegis of this Government—indeed dreamt up by this Government. The operation of the system seriously affects the quality of accommodation which can be provided.
The project control system is a mechanism whereby a calculation of the cost of the homes to be provided, either by new build or by rehabilitation, is set against the original site value in the case of land, or property value in the case of a house. A ratio is calculated and figures are submitted to the Department of the Environment. In some cases the Department of the Environment declines to intervene, but in many cases it does intervene. If it does, it can reject the application, and if it rejects the application the building or renovation project cannot go ahead.
To make matters worse, the guidelines against which the system operates have never been published. No manual is available to local authorities to explain how the Department will set about its task of calculating the value for money of particular schemes. Some schemes which cost more than others are passed, whereas the cheaper ones are not. Some which have a better ratio than others are declined, while the worse ratio schemes go ahead. There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the decisions which


are made by the Department in this matter, and no explanation has to be given, or is indeed ever given, to the local authority for the turning down of particular projects.
In such a matter, where we are talking about people's homes and something that will be of enormous benefit to people who desperately need it, for the Department and Ministers to operate the sort of secret system that we have in the present project control operation is outrageous. The Department should, at the very least, publish guidelines to set down the rules by which it will operate so that local authorities can at least do some advance planning and know how to advise their prospective tenants when they are consulting them about design, building or renovation. When they are going out to their electorate and talking about the sort of housing programmes that they can have, they should at least know what will and will not be possible. The roulette game which is imposed on local authorities at the moment by the way the system operates acts to the detriment of local authorities and their prospective tenants.
However, there are a number of even worse effects of the project control system. I want to go into those in some detail. The first is that the system seems to operate against those areas where land and property values are higher than others. In a constituency such as mine, where the southern part touches the City of London, where land and property prices are extremely high, whereas in the northern part they are much less high, the operation of the project control system means that schemes which are proposed in the southern part of my constituency tend to fare much worse than schemes which are proposed in the northern part.
I shall give one recent example of two housing schemes, both designed to provide 18 homes and both with more or less the same density of accommodation. I refer to the project at Everilda and Copenhagen streets, which was approved under the project control system by the Government, and the project at Farringdon road, which in the last few days has been rejected by the Department of the Environment under the project control system. At Everilda and Copenhagen streets there are 18 homes, with an average number of persons per dwelling of 4·2. At Farringdon road there are 18 homes with an average number of persons per dwelling of 4·3. The cost of construction of the 18 homes at Everilda and Copenhagen streets was £44,500 each. The average cost of construction at Farringdon road was £45,000 each. The ratio of cost to value at Everilda and Copenhagen streets was 101. At Farringdon road it was 92—a better ratio under the project control system.
Yet the Department of the Environment, with those two almost identical schemes, with almost identical construction costs and almost identical density, has rejected the scheme which has the better cost to value ratio and accepted the one which had the worst. We have no knowledge why the Department took that decision, because it does not have to tell us. But the only possible reason, and the only difference between the two schemes, is the original market value of the land. At Farringdon road, because it is towards the City in a prime site location, the cost of the land is some £10,000 per home higher than it is at Everilda and Copenhagen streets, despite the fact that the land is already in the local authority's ownership

and has been for a number of years. The Department appears to have rejected the scheme because of that higher value of the land.
If the Department and Ministers are serious about creating good quality homes within the inner city, particularly in the heart of the inner city, they must not operate such apparently arbitrary rules about land values. The project control system operates in a malign way against the interests of those who wish to see accommodation, particularly family accommodation, built in areas in the inner city where land values and prices will inevitably be higher than elsewhere. That seems to be the only reason why the Government could, in that particular instance, have decided to turn down that scheme which means that people will be denied a number of flats and houses, of which four are designed for wheelchair use for the disabled, and of which 10 are designed to mobility standards so that those who are frail or find difficulty in walking can have access to them, and where good quality family accommodation can be provided in an area which is in high demand for tenants in my constituency who wish to move into that sort of quality of accommodation, because of the apparently arbitrary rules that the Department of the Environment is seeking to operate. That is a tragedy for the people who are faced with that decision. That is one way in which the project control system operates in a malign way.
There is another tragedy, and that is that the system tends to force local authorities to build or renovate, with smaller homes being created rather than larger ones. Because there are no ground rules, we can only go by experience, but the overwhelming experience of people from Islington submitting applications for renovation or new building projects to the Department of the Environment is that an application for a family dwelling will be rejected, while an application for a home for one or two people is much more likely to be accepted.
If the Minister intends to protest that that does not happen, I draw his attention to the way in which his Department operated in relation to the Sans Walk housing development, again in my constituency, again in the Clerkenwell area, like the Farringdon road development, and again a development which will be extremely useful for the people of my area. That scheme had to go through three submissions before the Department finally accepted it. At each submission it required a reduction in the number of family homes which were to be provided in the development. It was only when we got down to a development which included far fewer family homes than the number which we had started with, and which people in the Clerkenwell area really want and need because there is a desperate need there for three, four and five-bedroom houses, that the Department said that we could go ahead with it. That is the way in which the project control system operates. It operates to the detriment of those who need housing accommodation.
It has also had a malign impact on what is called the estate action programme. This is a programme of work on estates which were built between the two world wars in Islington, where the council moves tenants out of blocks on a rotation basis and does major renovations, including the installation of lifts and central heating, knocking down walls to make rooms bigger, putting in entry phones, complete redecoration, refitting and so on. The way in which new homes are created out of old shells is quite often miraculous.
The purpose of that is not just to be able to use good quality solid and stable basic accommodation to create modern homes, not only to bring new life to old estates which are decaying and unpleasant to live in, but to keep a community together. On an estate of that kind, where one is working on a rotation basis over a number of years, one can preserve much of the tenant community on the estate, and people can stay on the estate but move into much better quality accommodation than the flat which they previously occupied.
It is extremely popular with the tenants who live on those estates. It was highly praised by the former Minister for Housing and Construction when he came to visit Islington and visited one estate where such work had begun. He saw the shoddy, awful and desperate state of the previous blocks, and he saw the extremely good quality of the work which was being done for the renovation programme.
The project control system is now operating to the detriment of that programme. Two years ago it was relatively easy for a local authority to gain acceptances on the various stages of the programme on various estates, but now, on stage after stage, even though the costs are deliberately being drastically reduced to try to assist in getting through the project control system, rejections are coming through from the Department of the Environment.
I should like the Minister to explain to the tenants of Sickert Court estate or Canonbury Court estate why his Department feels that they are no longer entitled to the good quality accommodation which can be provided out of the homes in which they are presently living, even though great effort has been made to keep costs down to the minimum necessary to produce good quality work. One should never cut costs in order to cut the basic quality of work. I am afraid that the way in which the Government are operating at present means that tenants on those estates, looking at other estates which now have very good work completed under the estate action programme, will be sadly disappointed that they are not able to achieve the same standards of work on their own estates because the Government will not let them.
I should like the Minister to tell the tenants why the Government will not let them have the standard of work that is needed on those estates, and why there has been such a stream of rejections of project control applications by the local authority for work which is highly valued by the tenants concerned. I suspect that what we are seeing—and it runs through the whole operation of the project control system and the philosophy behind the Government's housing activities—is the "cut costs at any price" philosophy.
That is the approach which the Government wish to see adopted by local authorities. In fact, by depressing the costs of work in that way, supposedly in the name of value for money, but in fact in the name of cuts in cost at any price, the effect will be to drive us straight back into the junk work which the Government's Back-Bench Members so decry and deplore, quite rightly, in the work which was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country.
I am happy to say that the Labour party is going in precisely the opposite direction. I am happy to say that the party's housing policy document, adopted overwhelmingly at our party conference last year, specifically said that there should be far fewer controls by central Government and bureaucrats in Marsham street over the

way in which local authorities carry out their housing programmes. The need is for local councils to be accountable to their local electorate and to be accountable to the tenants who will live in the homes that are created. That is where the consultation will take place and where the controls will operate. The controls will operate by the imposition of arbitrary rules by the Department of the Environment, which will not publish those rules, wilt not tell local authorities how or why they are operating. The Department operates them in a way which discourages the creation of family homes in the heart of the inner city and damages major and valued programmes such as the estate action programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the percentage of cases in Islington in which my Department has intervened?

Mr. Smith: The Department has intervened in recent months in a considerably higher percentage of cases than in previous months. I do not know the overall percentage. The Minister may enlighten us as the debate progresses, but that is not the point. If the Minister seeks to make great play of it, he is ignoring the fact that the local authority deliberately tries to read the mind of the Department of the Environment before making submissions, thereby deliberately downplaying its expectations, and he is ignoring the impact of the refusals.
I should like the Minister to tell me whether rejections have taken place in the estate action programme, because they have, and I have a list of them. I should like the Minister to tell me whether rejections took place on the Sans Walk development, because they did, and whether a rejection has occurred on the Farringdon road development, because it has. Whatever overall percentage the Minister may try to use to sweeten his actions, and whatever he decides to do in that respect, it will not mitigate the fact that there are now many tenants in the estate action programme who were looking forward to much better quality work than they are now to get because of the way in which the project control system operates.
Earlier on I mentioned Blair close, which is a new and small development carried out by the borough of Islington. It is named after Eric Blair, who wrote under the name of George Orwell and was a resident for many years in my constituency. He had a profound belief in the equal dignity and value of all ordinary people. On behalf of my constituents—and I wish that the Government would listen and not hide behind false statistics, as I expect the Minister will—I am saying that they have as much right to the best quality of accommodation to rent, and to want to see created out of the estates they are living in at the moment, as the Prime Minister has to have a fine house built for herself in Dulwich. My constituents want that to happen for them. That is their aspiration. It is a valid and valued aspiration and one which the Government are thwarting.

Mr. David Winnick: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on having initiated this useful and necessary debate. I appreciate his remarks about the effects of the housing programme on his own constituency. The background to this and other recent


debates on housing is the 63 per cent. reduction in real terms in public expenditure on housing between 1979–80 and 1985–86. In addition, there have been reductions in central Government subsidies for local authority housing. There have been cuts of about £1 billion since the Government came to office.
Those figures explain why there has been such a dramatic decline in the number of new council houses built. The provisional figure for the number of public sector starts last year is just over 33,000 for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is almost unbelievable. What would people have said if, a few years ago, before the Conservative party came to office, we had warned that a Tory Government's policies would result in the number of council dwelling starts in any given year being so low? It would have been understandable even if some of our supporters had even privately accused Labour candidates and Members of Parliament of exaggeration.
Figures that I have obtained from the Library show that this year there will be just 28,000 new council house starts in Great Britain. As we have said—it is worth repeating—in peace time there has never been such a sharp reduction in council house building since local authorities started to build. Is the Under-Secretary of State, who has just been muttering, proud of that record? Will he merely read out his brief when the time comes, taking the line that this is not his responsibility but a matter for Cabinet? The hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for being responsible, as one of the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, for a policy which has meant that the number of starts in the public sector last year was 33,000 and this year will be 5,000 lower than that figure.
It is untrue to say that there is no demand for council dwellings. That has been part of the fiction that Conservative Ministers have peddled since coming to office in 1979. From the very start, they said that the position had changed dramatically and that much less council accommodation was required. I do not accept that for one moment. I believe that the demand and need—certainly in the inner cities—is as great and as acute as in previous years.
The explanation is simple: for those who cannot possibly afford to buy, the only hope of obtaining adequate accommodation is through either a local authority or a genuine housing association. In some areas, including Greater London, property prices are so high that many people, including those on average incomes, find it very difficult indeed, if they have no savings, even to start to buy. I say again, because it is easy for Ministers to distort our position, that we are not against owner-occupation—indeed, the opposite. We are for owner-occupation. We recognise, however, as the Government are so reluctant to do, that many families and single people are just not able to buy.
Some people who do not wish to buy are forced to do so because they have no alternative. In a number of cases which have been brought to the attention of local authorities, the breadwinner has become unemployed or has had a reduction in his income and therefore has not been able to pay the mortgage. In addition, there has been a sharp decline in the number of housing association dwellings.
In my borough of Walsall no contracts for new council dwellings have been entered into since 1979. Inevitably, a large number of people are on the waiting list. Many families who live in high-rise flats have come to my surgeries or written to me about their problems. If they have one child, their chances of being rehoused are remote. Even families with two children have a small chance of being offered alternative accommodation in a house. I am sure that my borough is not unique in this. If no new council dwellings are built and if, at the same time, the Government ensure by their policies that a large part of the rented accommodation is sold, it is hardly surprising that such problems exist.
I believe that housing will be a major issue in the next election. The constant talk by Ministers about the tenants' right to buy will not hide the fact that there is increasing hardship and misery. My colleagues and I are continually waiting for an answer to the question about private tenants which we always ask in these debates. My question still is: if it is right for council tenants to have the right in law to buy, why do private tenants not have that right? Many private tenants would certainly like that right. My colleagues and I understand why a Tory Government will not do anything to offend the large property companies, but private tenants, who often are not as political as we are, do not understand why they are not given that right.
It is an indictment of the Government that so many families are living in acute hardship and misery, and will continue to do so, because of these policies. They have meant that local authorities cannot carry out their housing responsibilities. There is the scandal of bed and breakfast accommodation. How much does that add up to financially and in terms of misery for the families involved? Where is the logic and justice in a Government washing their hands of their responsibilities in one of the most important aspects of social policy—adequate housing?
Sometimes, we get the impression that, in effect, the Government say that the private rented sector will be able to fulfil the needs which at present are not met by the public sector. During the last debate on this topic, the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction told us that there would be no "major" change in the Rent Acts during this Parliament. As I said at the time, I am not sure what he meant by "major". We shall strenuously oppose all attempts to deregulate the private rented sector.
We do not want a repeat of the Rachmanite scandals. We warn that, if the Conservative party is re-elected to office and if it is determined, as it appears to be, to carry out the same policies carried out by the Tory Government in the Rent Act 1957, the result will be the same as in 1957. Ministers say that only new rented dwellings will be subject to deregulation. It is obvious that, as happened with the Rent Act 1957, some landlords will apply pressure to ensure that their tenants are thrown out so that their places can become new dwellings which are not subject to decontrol. That is how Rachmanism arose. Many of us warned at the time of what was likely to occur.
The way that the Government have acted on housing should cause the maximum concern and, as I have already said, we are determined that that should become a dominant issue in the next election campaign. The Government have done their best to undermine the existing stock of local authority housing. If the Government believe in selling off much of the rented housing stock, then replacements should have taken place. However, the opposite has happened.
The Government are more concerned with selling off as much as possible of the existing rented accommodation and at the same time to ensure by the housing policy that the majority of local authorities are not in a position to build. As a consequence, most local authorities have not been able properly to carry out their housing responsibilities for new building and modernisation. Many estates in my borough have not yet been modernised, because the local authority found that its HIP allocation has been inadequate.
For these reasons, I hope that the debate will continue elsewhere, in the Fulham by-election and in the country at large. The Opposition believe that it is wrong that people should be deprived of the ability to be properly housed. If they cannot buy accommodation—as I have said, I support owner-occupation—and so many people are not in that position, then those families have an absolute right to be properly housed. The only way they are likely to be properly, adequately and securely housed is through local authorities offering them accommodation. The Government have done everything possible to undermine the right and ability of local authorities to build and modernise. That is the Opposition's accusation against the Government and the Ministers who are carrying out their policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to debate the Government's policy towards local housing programmes. Now is the appropriate time of year to hold such a debate, as all hon. Members will know that around this time local authorities are deciding their priorities for what they have been granted as expenditure permission under the housing investment programmes. The authorities are now deciding their budgets for the coming year.
Like other hon. Members perhaps, I have in recent days attended at least one of the district housing committees in my borough, where local representatives of the tenants associations in the estates owned by the borough council in Southwark have been expressing their views about the priorities for expenditure. The tenants hope that these priorities will be endorsed by the housing committee and implemented over the next 12 months.
The background to this debate is common knowledge. We are at the end of a 10-year period in which Government financial contributions towards housing—which is traditionally also contributed to by local authorities—have been reduced year by year. We are now at the bottom point of that period of reduced Government investment in housing. Coincident with that is the reduction in the number of new housing starts and completions, and the reduction in the amount of work that is being done on renovation.
That is the background to the debate and we have often rehearsed in the House the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition in the way the Government have responded to what, by any analysis, is the housing need in England. The Government know that all the committees and reports issued last year concluded that we needed a massive amount of new housing. We also need a massive amount of money—£20 billion was the Department of the Environment's own figure—to renovate the housing stock in the public sector.
We continue to hope and look for signs that wisdom will prevail. We are looking for signs of a response to that mass of critical evidence which states that the Government are not doing their job properly in seeking to fulfil their election promise. That promise is now famous and no doubt with hindsight the Government may regret making it, but the Government promised that their objective was to make this nation the best housed nation in Europe. The Government have so far fallen appallingly short of that objective. Presumably the Government will want to forget all about that promise, as it will be decades if not centuries—if the Government's present policy continues—before they can reverse the trend and put us at the top of the league table in terms of adequate provision and meeting housing needs.
The title of the debate on the Order Paper names the three key issues on which I shall concentrate in my short contribution. That is unusual, as debate titles do not normally set out all the aspects of the matter under discussion. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury wanted the House to address the subject of Government policy on local housing programmes. That requires us to confirm each of the three elements in the title of the debate.
First, there is a need to have programmes for housing. We do not want a hit-or-miss, stop-start housing policy. We need, if we are to recover from the appallingly low position in housing provision, a planned policy whereby the housing provided actually meets the housing need. At present there is no set of programmes, under any Government-recognised methodology, which considers what is to be produced across the range of tenures and sectors. There is no way at present whereby the Government require a local authority to prove that the housing need—not demand—in the authority area requires so many single-bed, two-bed, three-bed or four-bed homes over the next few years. There is no way at present whereby the local authorities state their projection of population for new households and so require the Government to respond to their need. There is no way in which the Government can require an authority to supply details of local authority housing build, housing association or Housing Corporation build, as private development and so have the authority to provide a plan which the Government can recognise and ensure that the authority achieves.
The time has come for us to plan to meet housing needs at all levels. Some two years ago, the Government said that they would no longer have a national housing plan for England. We must plan if we are to realise the extent of the need and so meet that need. We must plan in each local authority area. Unless there is planning and a financial response to the sheer volume of need, we will not be able to fulfil that need and the increasing needs which will be caused by people presenting themselves for housing in future years.
If we do not meet this year's need, for example, for the people presenting themselves as homeless and the needs of those who may become homeless in the future, which may see an escalation in the number of new homeless cases received in boroughs such as Brent, Camden and Westminster, we will perpetually—certainly until the end of this decade—condemn people to bed and breakfast accommodation, to sleeping on the streets and to wandering around looking for what may be seedy, unsatisfactory, unsafe and multiple occupancy dwellings.
The first priority is planning. The second need is obviously for houses—renovated, fit and warm houses. Often of course flats and maisonettes are acceptable and people may prefer them. I am sure that the Minister will have seen that the survey recently produced by the GLC about housing standards in Greater London—no doubt one of its last pieces of research before its demise—confirms that with the removal of the traditional Parker Morris standards there has been a reduction in the standard of housing.
There has also been a reduction in the size of rooms, particularly in London, and no doubt elsewhere. Although there are arguments which may suggest that old-fashioned housing with high ceilings and large rooms was difficult to heat and unsatisfactory, I often now have complaints—as I am sure the Minister has in his borough of Ealing and elsewhere—that many people believe that there is not enough space. We must examine the standards of the housing we need and alter the requirements of the building regulations and of local authorities.
Although we should through advanced building construction and material science have better quality housing—much of our housing is of better quality—some poor quality new-build housing still exists in all sectors. That is often worse in the private sector than in the public sector. There is not a great deal of timber-framed housing or modern housing development in a constituency such as mine, except in the docklands area in Bermondsey, but when surveys are done there are often complaints that the new housing is not of a high standard, so would-be occupiers are put off. They will not buy those properties because they are advised that for structural reasons they should not make a major investment in them.
The third point was made specifically in relation to Islington—I do not know the figures or percentages, but perhaps the Minister will inform us of them—but it should not be the responsibility of Government to decide local authority priorities. Housing programmes supported by funding from taxpayers need to be local housing programmes. This is one of our great criticisms of Government economic policy as it affects housing policy.
In 1979, the Conservative party went to the country on a policy of the right to buy. The Government steered legislation through Parliament, and local authorities, whatever their views, political colour, will or circumstances, were forced to sell. They gained the assets from the sales which often left them in net deficit, and now they are told that they cannot spend the proceeds from those sales. They have been told that this year they may spend only 20 per cent. of capital receipts.
That restriction, for national expenditure reasons, which forbids local authorities to spend their own money, which has been acquired only by policies imposed by the Government, shows that the relationship between central and local government is wrong. Local authorities are at the centre of a complete pincer movement. On the one hand, they are forced to reduce their stock but are not given extra money to replace it, and on the other they are not allowed to spend the money coming to them from forced sales.
I hope that the Government will co-operate fully with the plans that the GLC has laid for the forward funding of housing programmes which it cannot pay for or manage after abolition at the end of this month. Southwark has the largest volume of public sector housing of any London

borough. It has 65,000 properties, and some 65 per cent. of the population live in public sector housing. It also has the largest proportion of ex-GLC housing stock—27,000 homes. A substantial amount of work needs to be done.
When we debated the undertakings by the Minister's predecessor, we did not receive any commitments that money would be found for that work when the GLC properties were handed to the boroughs. Indeed, there was a breach of a clear undertaking given at the time. We now need a clear undertaking that the Government will cooperate with, support—not merely be neutral about—and oppose any attempt to prevent, the forward funding with GLC money of the work that needs to be done on the housing estates that were in the hands of the GLC. If the boroughs cannot have the moneys which the GLC at present has, much of the vital work on the estates in greatest need of expenditure, whether on roofing and window repairs or on the installation of central heating, will not be done. People who live on what are generally regarded as some of the least desirable estates in London will then have no prospect of decent housing in the foreseeable future.
My next point is a regional point, which is inevitable given that all hon. Members who are likely to participate in the debate are London Members, except for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In London we have a particular responsibility to the public sector because a substantial proportion of our properties are local authority properties. Only one region in England has more local authority properties. In London, 29·8 per cent. of homes are owned by local authorities, we have the highest proportion of housing association properties—nearly 5 per cent.—and the highest proportion of private rented accommodation—we are the highest of the three regions where it is more than 10 per cent. Therefore, owner-occupation is a relatively small form of tenure in London compared with other regions. For that reason we have a particular responsibility to consider London policy separately from regional policy.
I should be grateful if the Minister, when he considers Government figures, planning and HIP allocations, will recognise that in London we are starting from a base of more public sector housing. I hope that he will recognise that, whatever happens in the future, we need commensurately more Government investment and approvals for expenditure on housing in our capital city than elsewhere.
As the Minister knows, one problem with the right to buy, and one of the problems which we in the alliance see increasingly with buildings in the public sector, is that if the right to buy is to continue, public sector new build, unless it is specialised housing, such as sheltered housing or housing for the elderly, is the housing most likely to be bought because it is the most desirable housing. Therefore, there will inevitably be a higher take-up of the right to buy of new-build housing stock, so the relative amount of decent new property in the public sector will be reduced. If it is believed that it is inappropriate to replace lost stock in the public sector, the voluntary sector must take up the deficit. I am thinking of the social housing sector, the Housing Corporation, housing associations and the like.
The Housing Corporation administers this part of the moneys funded by Government. I know from discussion with its officers that, although this year it is seeking to deal with the needs in London by moving funds which would otherwise be spent in counties such as Kent, Surrey and


Sussex to housing association build in London, it is finding it impossible to fund the projects for which it has bids from housing associations and which it would like to fund. If in the coming year the Minister does not fund and support public sector housing through Government expenditure, we need some commitment to increase the possibility of people having housing association and Housing Corporation funding.
Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the grant given to the Housing Corporation, and encourage the view that, if there is a crisis in housing in the capital city, he will seek to make additional funds available to the Housing Corporation? He knows that I am particularly interested in arguing that the docklands could benefit greatly from additional special Housing Corporation funding. Is he willing to accept that the docklands should be considered for special Housing Corporation allocation, such as has been given to other areas in the past?
The other day we came to the end of a hard road, down which many of my constituents have travelled to achieve an acceptable result regarding the Cherry Garden site on the riverside in Bermondsey. The London Docklands Development Corporation was about to develop largely private sector housing there, which was wholly unacceptable because the cost of the housing was to be massively beyond the means of most local people. A flat on the river with a wonderful view would have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in a community with a desperate need for housing. The local authority, the LDDC, the Government, the GLC and I have long been engaged with local people in seeking a satisfactory solution, and we have now more or less done so.
Most of the site will be taken up with a deferred funding project, which means that local authority housing will occupy most of it. That is a good achievement. Incidentally, the best laid plans of the LDDC were further thwarted when it was discovered that there was an ancient monument on another part of the site—a medieval royal mansion on the riverside. Therefore, its idea of putting up a futher luxury block of flats for sale has been thwarted because our heritage must, of course, come first.
I ask the Government for a commitment that schemes which allow deferred payment and forward funding, if necessary by borrowing from the private sector, can be encouraged rather than discouraged. Therefore, even if there is no immediate prospect in the forthcoming financial year of the development of such a site as the Cherry Garden site for public sector or deferred public sector housing, if none the less the need is there and the financial arrangements are available, I hope that the Government will not block any possible overtures by local authorities for extra funds to enable the housing to be built that the local people need. Such co-operation from the Government would prevent such a site as Cherry Garden being bought speculatively for private gain at the expense of local needs. I would be grateful for an assurance that that type of scheme will receive the endorsement of the Government. We need more such schemes for the local people of Bermondsey, as elsewhere.
I hope we will soon see change from a Government who have resisted Londoners' demands for housing long enough. The Government may think that a move in this direction will at least save them a few votes in the elections that are coming up.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on raising this important matter, and I congratulate him also on his excellent speech, in which he set out the problems caused to so many families by the Government's savage cuts in local housing programmes.
On the day that the House adjourned for Christmas, I raised the problem of the housing crisis in my constituency of Leyton and Leytonstone. I drew attention to the growing problem of homelessness and the increasing inability of the local authority to cope properly with that problem. Such inability had an effect on the people on the waiting lists who were desperately trying to get a move. More and more were told that they had no chance of getting the move that they wanted. The new building programme had been effectively curtailed. Repairs were harder to obtain and estates which desperately needed environmental improvements were denied them and were pushed further back in the queue awaiting such improvements.
Subsequent to that debate I asked a parliamentary question about housing investment in Waltham Forest. I asked what the investment in real terms was in 1979, and what it was at present. The answer was that in 1979 housing investment was worth £17 million, but that it was worth £4·5 million in real terms in 1985. That was the result of the Government's savage cutback in the housing programme. The Minister who replied to my question said that I had not given enough emphasis to the private sector. However, the private sector cannot possibly fill the gap caused in Waltham Forest, or anywhere else in the country, by the Government's savage cuts.
I have referred to the housing problems in the private sector. Home improvement grants for owner-occupiers in my borough have been blocked since August 1984. The opportunity for low-income owner-occupiers to repair and improve their homes has been effectively extinguished by that blocking policy. Private tenants are afforded little protection. I contributed to the debate on this matter recently, and I feel that there should be an effective charter of rights for private tenants. The Labour party takes into account private as well as public sector housing.
I referred briefly at Christmas to the Sinnott road development site in my borough. It is a site of scarce housing land which will be needed to rehouse families displaced by the Mll link road proposals as they affect my constituency. The Waltham Forest council—it is jointly controlled by the Liberals and the Tories—is in the process of selling off that site. It is a scandal.
I received a letter from the leader of the Labour group on the council, Councillor Bill Pearmine, about that site. Bill Pearmine draws attention to the recommendations of the council's housing committee on 28 January which were accepted by the full council—Liberal and Tory-controlled—on 20 February. The housing committee recommended:
Members are asked to endorse the current proposals. This would include a formal submission to the DOE in order to dispose of the land at nil cost or at cost below market value.
Councillor Pearmine asked:
How anyone can talk of disposing at 'nil value' land on which 148 homes can be built is beyond me; as the developer will retain nearly 100 properties. This is putting in the hands of a private developer an asset that when built will be worth over £3·5 million assuming a unit price of £35,000 and that may indeed be


on the low side … You will notice that if the DOE requires repayment of the outstanding loan debt on the land, then the nomination rights would only apply to 16 properties.
That is all that the council would get out of the sale. However, the total cost would be £1,806,000. That is the amount of the give away by the council to private developers for scarce housing land in my borough. Privatisation is represented by that type of handout. The Conservatives and Liberals are forcing a massive handout to private developers, regardless of the need for public sector houses.
It is a deplorable situation. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should get on his feet and deplore that handout. Unless he does so, in any future elections the Liberals' part in that deplorable give away of housing land must be made clear.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know the facts in the hon. Member's borough, but I shall look into them and I shall certainly raise the matter with him again. I understand his concern, and it is a matter with which I shall deal.

Mr. Cohen: I am pleased that the hon. Member has made that point. I hope that he will visit the Liberal councillors at Waltham Forest and get them to reverse this deplorable situation.

Mr. John Fraser: With the advent of the second world war, the construction industry went through a dramatic change, for quite understandable reasons. The building of homes came to a sudden and dramatic halt. I can remember as a child that it was clear that the industry was not building houses, but was concerned with defence and was often engaged in building barriers and obstructions.
For wholly incomprehensible reasons, a cycle of dramatic change has been followed by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. Under the Conservative Government the large public housing building programme has been replaced by barriers and obstructions. They have blocked the desires of local authorities. I wish to deal with two such obstructions, which were touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
The first obstruction is in terms of the housing investment programme. We tend to use jargon far too often in the House. I suspect that many people outside do not understand what the housing investment programme is, so let us remind ourselves. It is not money that is provided by central Government to local authorities. It is the amount of money which a local authority is allowed to raise from its own resources or by borrowing from banks or building societies. It is not money which is supplied by the Government. The housing investment programme has turned out to be the restricted levels which are imposed by central Government upon local government when it seeks to discharge its housing responsibilities. Over the past seven years we have had a history not of assistance to local authorities, but one of obstruction.
The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) are fairly clear. Between 1979–80 and the current financial year, the amount of capital expenditure that local authorities have been allowed to engage upon has dropped by 63 per cent. That

is, in broad terms, the money that was allowed to provide 10 new houses in 1979–80. Now enough money is allowed to provide only four new houses.
To put it another way, there has been a loss of 100,000 public sector homes for every year that the Government have been in office; or, to put it yet another way, every week that goes by under this Tory Government, 2,000 fewer homes are built than would have been built if a Labour Government had been in office. The plight of individual boroughs shows that it should be called, not the HIP, but the dip. I have some figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. At constant 1985–86 prices, in 1979–80 Islington was allowed to spend £90 million on all sorts of housing projects, ranging from new build to help for owner-occupiers with repair and improvement grants. As a result of the HIP allocation in 1985–86, it will be allowed to spend £29 million, which is slightly under one third of what it was allowed to spend six years ago. That is a Labour borough, so let us take a borough under Conservative and Liberal control—Brent. In 1979–80 it was permitted to spend £52 million on housing expenditure and in 1985–86 it has been allowed to spend rather less than half that figure, £23 million.
Only yesterday, some figures were published by the Greater London council on the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am sorry that these figures are not directly comparable to the HIP figures. In 1981, Brent council had a net expenditure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation of £600,000. In 1984–85 it had a net expenditure on homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation of £1·5 million. In two years, from June 1983 to June 1985, the bed-and-breakfast population accommodation by Brent council has doubled.
One sees reflected in London borough after London borough a steep and dramatic drop in the amount of housing investment permitted to the local authorities, and equally a steep and dramatic increase in the number of homeless families and the amount of money that has to be spent by the local authorities in looking after those who have no roof above them.
I do not apologise for using the figures for Lambeth. In 1979–80 it was allowed to spend £94 million on its housing programme. That figure has dropped by almost two thirds to £34 million in the current year, and, rather like Brent, expenditure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation has gone up, while investment has gone down. In 1981 it spent £229,000 on looking after such families, and for 1984–85, despite many efforts to use local housing for homeless families, the expenditure has escalated to £997,000. Over six years housing investment has been cut by two thirds, and in three years expenditure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased by 300 per cent. Wherever one looks, the figures are much the same.
To give some idea of the scale of dereliction of public housing and the lack of urgency and care about what should be spent on those in greatest need, we can take another comparison. In the current year, the revenue subsidy through the mortgage interest relief scheme to those buying their own homes is running—I do not know the exact figure to the end of the financial year—at about £4·7 billion. That means that the revenue subsidy to owner-occupiers is running at double the amount of capital expenditure that local authorities are permitted to pay.
Side by side with homelessness, unfit homes, waiting lists, deprivation and despair are the continuous cuts in the


amounts available to local authorities to spend. One cannot escape the conclusion that the severity of control is applied with the greatest stringency to those areas of greatest housing need.
The second obstruction that is being persisted in by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction is what is called project approval. For some local authorities the words "project approval" have a hollow ring.

Sir George Young: Project control.

Mr. Fraser: Project control. That amounts to the substitution of the judgment of officials at Marsham street for that of the local authority. I have examples similar in part to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). When my local authority read the Department's circular 28/82, it saw that it was about "good value for money". I have no objection to that, but the circular went on to say that the project control was about the local authorities
being directly accountable to their electorate for decisions about housing provision … to give local authorities greater freedom to decide cost and quality of the dwellings they provide".
My local authority took that seriously. It wanted to provide large family houses and spacious flats in the heart of Brixton. We all recognise the need for spacious accommodation, to give people a sense of history and place, to enhance a conservation area, to respect the views of local people and to maintain mature trees. The accommodation had a large number of bed spaces, private gardens and parking, and was to be built at the relatively low cost of £13,245 per bed space. However, when the project was submitted to the Department of the Environment, it was turned down because the cost was above market value by 198 per cent.
In this case, the project was turned down because the value of the dwellings that would be created by the rehabilitation scheme were far above the low-market values in the centre of Brixton. In an area that has been dragged down by its boot straps, which has a number of social problems, a problem of crime—which affects property values—and where unemployment has been escalating, and values and purchasing power falling—affecting land prices—projects for good dwellings will be at prices well above the local value for property. Therefore, projects are turned down.
In Islington the problem is different, because land prices are high, but the projects are still turned down. This brings us to the complaint that local authority offices do not know where they are. They do not understand what the system is. If it is the system that operates in Brixton, it seems extraordinary. In the project that I mentioned, the cost per dwelling was £62,000. That might seem a lot of money, but it is not compared to the dwelling that the Prime Minister is intending to buy in Dulwich. It is not much money compared to the price of many three or four-bedroom homes in the south London area. When I look in the Wates property guide or the South London Press, I see that at Gun wharf a two or three-bedroom maisonette costs £329,000. With such property prices in the affluent part of my constituency and south London, £62,000 for a completely modernised, self-contained, centrally-heated flat with a garden at the front and the back and car parking space is incredibly good value for money, but it is not good enough for those who are poor and deprived.
Local government officials do not know where they stand. They believe that the project control operates

against the maintenance of quality. The one thing about which I feel most strongly, and I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Leyton feel the same, is that we must invest local authority housing with more dignity and status. Perhaps we can even have a few extravagances—extravagances which can be enjoyed, not just by the occupants, but by all the community, and which raise the standards and the quality of an area. We want to see that, but project approval operates against it.
Secondly, project approval appears to be wholly inconsistent. The levels of expenditure permitted in one area of a borough are disregarded in another area only a mile away. The system is uncertain. The yardstick at least had some kind of generally accepted measure of cost.
The application of project control is operated where the local authority officers and councillors are kept in ignorance and frustration. I am told that no reasons are given for decisions, and this applies in Lambeth, in Islington and elsewhere. I am told that no approach is possible to technical counterparts of local government officers in Marsham street. There is no dialogue possible between those in local authorities and those in central Government.
We have had the chance to air two obstructions which the Government have erected against the provision of local authority housing programmes. I do not know when we will have repentance. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I am sure, regrets the trends that have taken place, perhaps imposed upon the Government mostly by the Treasury. I hope that in the course of the coming local and parliamentary elections, repentance will be forced upon the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on giving the House the opportunity to debate housing, a crucially important subject. In no way do I deny the existence of the problems that he set out in opening. Too many buildings in local authority control are in poor condition and too many people are living in bad conditions in both sectors with too many people in bed and breakfast accommodation. That is common ground between us.
The problems have not risen overnight. As a London Member of Parliament representing an inner city seat, I share the hon. Member's concern that too many people are living in unacceptable housing conditions.
I find it infinitely depressing that in his speech and in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) nowhere is the suggestion made that the private sector has some part to play in tackling the problem that has been outlined. Nowhere in either speech was there any recognition that local authorities can have a constructive partnership with the private sector, the building societies and the financial institutions to make faster progress in putting right the wrongs outlined by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The Opposition's only answer is more public expenditure. Whichever Government are in control, if they continue only to look to the public sector for a solution to all these problems, they will simply have to wait far longer than if they develop the sort of partnership that this Government have been promoting.
The narrow vision shared by those two hon. Members is not shared by Labour councillors. A growing number of Labour-controlled local authorities are recognising that there are resources waiting to be unlocked in the private sector. We announced only two weeks ago the first scheme under the £50 million housing investment programme that my Department held back, when we announced the go-ahead at Calderdale for a scheme whereby resources were made available to turn round the Abbey Park estate, a very difficult estate. This involved extra resources for the local authority from my Department but, crucially, resources from the private sector to take over some of the empty houses for refurbishment and sale at acceptable prices, initially to people on the waiting list or to other local authority tenants.
The other thing that I find so depressing about all the Opposition speeches is that they do not recognise that there is far more to tackling housing than just local authorities. The vast majority of people want to own their own homes. Hon. Gentlemen spoke about the HIP allocations which have fallen, although they have not fallen as fast as they did under the last Labour Government. They said nothing about starts in the private sector, which are up from 99,000 in 1980 to 161,000 in 1985. Opposition Members keep putting the telescope to their blind eye and concentrating on one part of the housing market without recognising that Government policies have brought home ownership within the reach of more people. Many people who traditionally looked to the local authority alone for a solution to their housing problem now look to alternative schemes, to shared ownership and to other schemes whereby the local authority makes available land that it owns for building under licence to a local builder who builds at prices controlled by the local authority for onward sale to those in need.
I had hoped that the Labour party had now accepted that my party's policy under the right to buy was not a policy to be resisted as ferociously as they tried to five years ago, and that we were developing some common ground in this sort of approach to housing problems. I was somewhat depressed that, apart from a passing reference from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), there was no recognition from Opposition Members of the broader housing issues and the other opportunities to tackle housing apart from the only thing they seemed to know—more public expenditure.
It is worth putting on record that more people are now being housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 than in 1979, and that a substantial improvement has taken place in the nation's housing stock by way of restoring missing amenities. There has been a substantial improvement in the disbursement of improvement grants since 1979, with the figure up from some £90 million in that year to over £400 million this year.
I say to the hon. Member, for Walsall, North, who called for more public expenditure on building houses for rent, that there is general agreement that the priority for local authorities rests with modernising, improving and making the best use of existing stock before embarking upon a new programme of building for rent. We have published a survey that we had the courage to commission showing that there is £20 billion of outstanding work on local authority stock. We have to tackle that first. We have

to bring back into use the 28,000 homes that have been empty for far too long before embarking on an expensive programme of new build for rent.
I mention now local authority project control, which was the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Only 80 local authorities are covered by project control. The vast majority of local authorities do not come within project control because they are out of subsidy. Secondly, the Department rarely intervenes. Taking renovation, we intervene in only 7 per cent. of applications; for new build, the figure is 12 per cent. For Islington, the figure is higher, at 25 per cent. That is because Islington put forward a number of very expensive schemes.
It is not the case that, after we have rejected it, a project simply lapses. In most cases—and I take a personal interest—projects can be renegotiated and different schemes put forward which my Department approves. I hope that that will be possible in the scheme mentioned by the hon. Gentleman at Farringdon road. In that scheme, the floor areas are very generous. There is a high land cost element of nearly £20,000 per dwelling. We believe that the site could be developed a little more to achieve its full potential. I am aware that the council wishes to include a number of wheelchair users in the scheme and to build properties of mobility standard. It is right that the local authority should concentrate on those needs. If it would like to resubmit a scheme—as I have said, I take a personal interest—I will see, as has happened in most cases in Islington, whether some compromise is acceptable. The present resource cost of that scheme works out at £82,000 per dwelling. I have to ask whether that is the best use that Islington can find for scarce HIP resources, and whether there is not a better way of spending the money that we have made available to it.
I deal next with some points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The way we allocate resources reflects the fact that in some parts of the country there are more local authority dwellings than in others. Building new houses for rent which are then subject to the right to buy is made more difficult by the application of the cost floor rules. The local authority cannot sell at a loss. If one considers the sort of cost that I mentioned, it is clear that if the right to buy is exercised there is no discount and one has to buy at the historic cost. That would put the new properties beyond the reach of most people.
We have taken an interest in the relationship between the LDDC and Southwark. I was pleased that on one or two sites a good working relationship has been reached. I know of the case that the hon. Member makes for more local authority starts. That having been said, Tower Hamlets and Southwark, have about the highest percentage of local authority tenure in the country. The top priority is to get a better balance by building more houses for sale rather than more houses to rent if one is to try to build up a slightly more balanced community.
This has been a worthwhile debate. I shall write to those hon. Members who raised specific points, in particular the hon. Member for Leyton who asked about the Sinnott road scheme, which I remember from the last debate, although, unfortunately, I do not remember the answer. As I say, I shall write to the hon. Member and see how best we can help him. I urge the Opposition to consider whether there


might be a role for the private sector to play in tackling the problems to which they have quite rightly drawn the attention of the House.

Welfare Services (Privatisation)

7 pm

Mr. Frank Field: The House is indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the choice of this debate. It is highly appropriate that we should spend some time this evening considering the implications of the privatisation of the National Health Service, for earlier this week the press carried a number of reports which suggested that the Prime Minister is unhappy with the performance of her Secretary of State for Social Services in privatising the National Health Service. Being a good judge of her Ministers, she has, no doubt with due care, chosen the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security who is to respond to this debate to be the agent to spearhead the next stage of the privatisation of the National Health Service.
Earlier this week, a report in The Guardian gave us the news that the Under-Secretary of State is to have special responsibility for this campaign. We were also told why the campaign is so important. The Guardian report said:
The savings would form part of a campaign to be launched at this year's Conservative Party conference highlighting the Government's efficiency.
The report went on to note that the Under-Secretary of State's attention was being drawn to those areas of the NHS that are "ready", to use the word in The Guardian report, for privatisation; and particularly marked down for his careful attention are hospital catering departments. We learn from the report that only seven out of 2,500 hospital contracts have been won by private companies.
There is also a somewhat sinister aspect to the report. It refers to the reaction of one of our biggest contracting companies, Gardner Merchant, and to its feelings about the second stage of the Government's war on privatisation. Gardner Merchant does not want a move towards ordinary privatisation. According to its general manager, it is seeking long-term contracts with health authorities with fixed fees and no penalty clauses. I congratulate the private sector upon knowing on which side its bread is buttered.
My only other experience of that kind of offer being made is in defence contracts—or perhaps I should say, was in defence contracts, because the Government have gone to considerable lengths to bring Mr. Peter Levene into the Ministry of Defence to break up fixed-price contracts. This is because, in the words of the then Secretary of State for Defence, they were not a good deal for the taxpayer.
When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to tell the House about the next stage of the Government's privatisation programme. Will it take the traditional form of firms competing without knowing about the bids of their competitors? What is more important, will penalty clauses be included for use against those companies that fail to fulfil the terms of their contract?
Before the end of the debate, I hope that I shall have had time to mention the way in which privatisation has affected the constituency that I represent. I hope to refer specifically to how privatisation has affected the National Health Service, but I hope also to refer to how it has affected other services. The Wirral was proud—I use that word advisedly, as the Prayer Book tells us to do—of its pathfinding record. It was one of the first authorities


to privatise its waste disposal service. Now it has another record. It has one of the worst waste disposal services in the country.
Many areas of the town are swept only by the wind blowing the rubbish around. The Conservative majority on the council is so concerned about efficiency and about a decent deal for taxpayers that not once has it invoked the penalty clauses that could be invoked to try to improve the standard of the service to ratepayers. When the Under-Secretary of State sums up, I hope that he will have time to say a little more about how he views his commanding role in opening up the second front of the privatisation of the National Health Service.
I think that it would be helpful, both to hon. Members who are present in the Chamber and to the electorate, to look at the progress that has been made so far and to consider whether some of the grand claims that have been made for privatisation have been fulfilled. In order to do that, I shall move around the country to see just how effectively the Government's privatisation measures are working. We shall notice, in the contributions from both Opposition Members and, no doubt, from Conservative Members, that certain words will come quickly to our lips when looking at the gains that are supposed to have been made from the privatisation programme. I shall hear about economy, efficiency, savings—words that warm the cockles of our hearts. However, before the debate ends I hope to look at what those words mean for patients and at what those words—economy, efficiency and savings—innocent though they may sound, mean for workers who face the privatisation of their industry.
I shall move around the country to show just how well the Government's privatisation programme has worked out. My first port of call, to use a nautical phrase, since I am to deal with such a great shipbuilding constituency, although I am fully aware that it is landlocked, is the Attenborough hospital at Cambridge.
Earlier this year, the press carried a report from the hospital administrator about its privatisation service, which is run by Hospital Cleaning Services. The report said that nurses and doctors found blood and bone on the floor of the operating theatre when they arrived on Friday morning to perform a hip replacement operation that was expected to take place that day. Needless to say, the operation did not take place because of the dangers of infection. However, the hospital administrator went on to note that it was the second time in two days that blood had been found on the floor of the operating theatre. This happened more than once. It was not just an odd bit of bad work because somebody wanted to get home.
That was the beginning of a trend in that Cambridge hospital. The report said how surprising it was that the health authority knew so little about the range of cleaning work that needs to be undertaken if operating theatres are to be safe for operations. According to the press report, the hospital administrator said:
They are contracted to clean ceiling vents but this theatre has a special airflow unit and we did not allow for this in our contract specifications.
These experts were therefore pushing out to private contract work that was supposed to be done by the private sector. However, when it was found that the operating theatre could not be used they discovered that the special air vents had been cleaned by hospital cleaners. Nobody

had to tell them to do this; they just did it. Those at the top—who do not know the people whom one might euphemistically describe as being at the bottom of the pile—did not know what was entailed in this contract. But they learned. So did the patients at that Cambridge hospital. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be able to provide details to update the report about this hospital in Cambridge.
I move away from Cambridge to a second port of call which is also landlocked—Croydon. The district health authority published a report that drew attention to
Stained lavatories, dirty surgeries, and potentially dangerous security lapses
as a result of the privatisation of its cleaning services. Again I must thank the media for this confidential report which was drawn up by Mr. Roberts, Croydon's general manager. A senior Croydon official said:
the authority was 'extremely angry' at the 'appalling standards' since the firm took over from health service cleaners in June".
That was June of last year. The general manager said in his report that by the end of the first month
standards had already deteriorated and most premises were looking scruffy. There was an excess of dust on ledges, sills, and pipes. Toilets and handbasins were becoming stained. … The specification had definitely not been fully met in any of the 12 locations.
Mr. Roberts reported that by August of last year the car parks were "accumulating litter" and "many areas were skimped." By October toilet brush holders and bins were not cleaned and the bases of sinks had a build-up of soap and dirt under the rim. By November of last year toilet areas were still below standard and furniture had not been moved for cleaning floors. That dismal report on Croydon shows one aspect of the new broom of privatisation.
The confidential report highlighted another area which I should not have thought of immediately; I dare say the officials at the top did not think of it but when the privatisation programme was under way it became clear. Again I quote:
Security and locking procedures were a problem because of the high staff turnover, Mr. Roberts reports. Eighty-seven people had held 25 posts in five months.
We may ask why. Was it because of the standards of the hospital? Was it a grotty hospital to work in—although presumably staff had not had that problem before? Was pay a problem, or was it because of a nasty individual who ran the private contracts? Again, I hope the Minister will not only update us on the state of play in Croydon's hospitals but will comment on the security lapses.
Not so long ago Ministers were answering questions about hospitals being locked at night because of the need to keep people out. We had the horrendous story of a mother giving birth to her child on the doorstep of a hospital because it was locked. I suppose one advantage of privatisation is that the doors in Croydon will be open because security lapses are such that security cannot be guaranteed. That is an unintended result. Given the state of many inner cities and of the area I represent, I fully understand why hospital doors are locked at night. If privatisation is to lead to what the report talked of as "security lapses", we should be grateful for the Minister's views.
We have been to Cambridge and we have called in at Croydon to consider progress. My next stop is Barking. The cleaning company there, Crothall, is one to which I pay particular attention because it is the leading bidder for the cleaning contract at Clatterbridge hospital in the area which I represent. I hope the Minister can answer certain


questions which I shall put to him about that company. We learn that it had been cleaning a hospital in Barking for 16 years. Under the pressure of the Government's privatisation measures it had cut the cost of cleaning from £367,000 to £211,000, a big cut. If we took the argument no further than the Government's wish for efficiency savings and good buys for taxpayers, Ministers could claim that ground was being made, but if expenditure on a cleaning contract is cut from almost £400,000 to a little over half that, adjustments have to be made somewhere. It is no surprise to discover where the adjustments were made in Barking, as they were made elsewhere. We learn that the company managed to balance its books by lopping 41 per cent. off the hours that it thought would be necessary under the new arrangements to keep the hospital clean.
I pause for a moment in my debate with the Minister on privatisation to ask what the Government did when the contracts were put in. If the company is now seriously saying that it can clean the hospital in 41 per cent. fewer cleaning hours, was it not overcharging during the 16 years that it was cleaning the hospital previously? Is there not an issue which the Government should examine if they are so concerned about a fair deal for taxpayers?
As well as being concerned about taxpayers, as the Opposition rightly are—I cannot emphasise that enough, knowing the whims of some of my colleagues—we are also concerned about the deal for patients and for people who work in our hospitals. Let us consider what privatisation meant in Barking.
The women who clean the hospital were told that their hours would be cut; not only would they lose drastically because of the number of hours worked each week but they would have to work a three-week rota of one week of mornings, one week of afternoons and one week of evenings. For those at the top of the Civil Service or, dare I say it, even for MPs, that may seem easy enough. We may ask what is wrong with working such a rota. But many of those who do this crucial work in our hospitals have other concerns; they may have to look after children.
Many cleaners at Barking said that such a contract was impossible for them to fulfil. They maintained that they could not give a first-class service to their children if their working hours changed like that. Not only were there changes in their working hours, but they suffered considerable cuts in pay. Cleaners at Barking reported that the hourly rate of £2·03 was not cut but that fewer hours of work reduced pay by an average of 35 per cent. In some cases hours were cut by 60 per cent.
The report that I draw on to show the effects of privatisation in Barking outlines how one cleaner viewed her work. I hope the Government want to foster the concern of cleaners rather than break it. According to the report, the cleaner said:
When I first started working at the hospital 16 years ago I was working a 30-hour week. Then my hours were cut to 25. Even then I felt I'd like to have another hour to get it really clean. Now Crothall are saying I've got to do the work in 15 hours. Well, there's no way I could do that. Housework you can neglect, but not a hospital—not when you've got babies in intensive care.
I should have thought that was a feeling that hon. Members on all sides of the House should encourage rather than cripple.
I move back to Cambridge because, although the Minister nodded when I asked him to report progress on Cambridge, I have progress to report to him. I was quoting

an earlier report on privatisation in Cambridge, but things have moved on. By the end of October Professor John Davis, one of the country's leading paediatricians, had resigned. I quote his reasons; he was protesting against "political decisions" to force hospital cleaning services to be privatised. He said:
You will know that my attitudes are essentially conservative".
So Professor Davis, who is not a fellow traveller but probably a member of the Minister's party, is openly and honestly declaring where his political prejudice or principle—whichever word we want—lies. He continued:
there comes a time when one must be seen to live up to one's professed principles and true conservatism means recognising that the economy is made for man and not vice versa".
No doubt that will be the theme tune of the debate. The professor said that his reason for resigning was the
so-called privatisation of the hospital cleaning services and the terms of the contract that we have accepted.
He continued:
I believe that to save money by further separating the status of the professional from that of ancillary staff would not serve this end if it means employing the latter as casual labour. On my wards we value very highly the responsible and loyal work of our cleaners and the personal help often given to our patients and their parents … I am not against privatisation but it should be left to the decision of the authority. We should be able to judge it on its merits.
That is a direct challenge to the Minister, as he has been given special command by the Prime Minister to open up this second front of privatisation in the NHS. Will the battle be won in the old Tory tradition of letting people at grass roots level, who we always used to be told know the problems, to set policy, or will we have the Big Brother approach and direction from the centre?
While making such allegations, the Labour party should note that it is no use, while our backsides are on this side of the House, drawing attention to the high-minded attitudes and actions of the Government if we behave exactly the same if our backsides ever touch down on the other side of the House and we form the Government. If we think that it is wrong to have such central direction of services—I do—we must keep Labour Ministers up to the mark if and when we form the next Government.
I now want to take the debate up to the north and to my constituency. As is revealed in parliamentary answers, we are unfortunately in the area that has privatised cleaning services the most. I want to consider the effect of privatisation on Arrow Park—our new, grand, modern hospital which serves all four Wirral constituencies. In its wisdom, my constituents return a Labour Member of Parliament, but others are a little slower to see such wisdom, as Birkenhead has, and return Tory Members.
The Minister will know that the health authority is Tory controlled. It wrote a letter, which every member signed, saying that it was appalled at having to push through the privatisation measure and that it did not like it. It said that it had accepted the in-house contract because it was the cheapest, but that it would have preferred not to privatise the service. Those Tories and the minority Labour section have been proved right by what privatisation has meant to those who work in the Health Service in the Wirral.
Women workers are the majority and have been divided into two groups—those who work 15 hours and those who work 30 hours. The former group are the majority and the latter will pick up £39·40 a week. Before the new


contract, they will have been working full time, able to work overtime, and Saturdays and Sundays when required, and to gain bonuses. If they worked long hours, they would have been able to notch up £100 a week. That is not the type of salary that Members of Parliament would want, but it is far above the £40 a week that they are being offered now. They face a cut of £60 a week. All the men have been offered 30 hours a week. That is discrimination for you, assuming that men's needs are greater than women's. All the men are being offered £39 a week. I shall give the example of a 57-year-old male constituent who has worked in the hospital for 15 years and who used to take home £100 a week after shift work, Sunday work, bonuses and the rest. He is now offered £40 a week. He is substantially worse off working than signing on the dole and drawing benefit.
Has the privatisation resulted in efficiency, savings and all those grand phrases? It may have done if one takes a very one-sided view of the issue. However, I have talked to my constituents, who have been on the receiving end. Many of them, who have worked in our hospitals for much of their working lives, have had their pride broken. They thought that their job was important to the community, but their terms of contract have been torn up. Some used to cycle through the night and the early hours of the morning to arrive on time at hospitals in the Wirral, but they have been told that their services are no longer wanted. Many single parents, who are now faced with the new contracts of 15 hours a week, have decided that the only thing that they can do is sign on for benefit.
The Government's privatisation measure has been enacted in full force in the Wirral which has experienced a far greater spread of privatisation than most other areas. Supposed savings have been achieved through crippling the staff and destroying their pride. It is difficult to draw the words together to tell the Minister what it has been like in my surgery as worker after worker has come to tell me privately how broken he feels.
I do not want this misery to spread throughout the country, but the Minister has not experienced people coming in, nervously clutching the end of the table as though it can be peeled, not quite knowing how to start the sentence or even whether they will get through to the end of the sentence without breaking down and crying, saying what it means to have their pay cut, their terms of contract torn up and their usefulness to the community devalued. Perhaps the Minister would comment on those personal experiences as well as on the more general aspects of the debate.
I want to ask the Minister about Crothall, the contract cleaning company, because I gather that it heads the bids for Clatterbridge hospital, the second biggest hospital in Wirral. Much to its credit, the health authority, which is Tory-dominated, is loth to accept that bid. I suspect—I do not know because I am not party to its conversations—that it is loth to accept the bid because of the company's record elsewhere. I ask the Minister therefore whether he will undertake to ensure that no pressure is put on the Wirral health authority to force it to privatise its cleaning services at Clatterbridge with that company.
I have five questions for the Minister concerning privatisation in the National Health Service. First, can he give the House, the country, voters, taxpayers, patients and workers an undertaking that he is satisfied that

privatisation has improved standards of service, or say whether he has any doubts? If so, what will he do about it? Will he press ahead, as the Prime Minister tells him, or will he slow down the privatisation programme?
Time after time, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told us that cuts in wages will lead to additional jobs. We have had cuts in wages in the Wirral on a vicious scale, cuts such as we did not see even in the 1930s, and people have lost their jobs. Will the Minister tell us how many new jobs have been created in the Wirral as a result of the Government's privatisation measures and—I do not want this to be concerned just with my own area—how many extra jobs in the rest of the country have resulted from cuts in wages?
Thirdly, is the Minister proud of the record of increasing the number of people who draw poverty wages? Is that the sort of thing that he wants to encourage in this country? Before 1979, a person who was aspiring to be Prime Minister said that our children should grow tall—let them grow to a thousand different heights. Yet, when it comes to those at the bottom of the earnings pile, there is no encouragement, no floor to put under them; instead, there is a policy which makes not just marginal adjustment to their pay but, as I quoted in the cases of some of my constituents, cuts of 60 per cent. Is that the record of privatisation elsewhere in the country? Is that what the Government want, and will the second front of privatisation bring us even more people earning poverty wages than there are at present?
Fourthly, are the Government proud of their record of destroying the self-respect of the workers that I have described to the House? The Minister looks puzzled and shakes his head, but he makes a note, and I am grateful for that. I find it difficult to contain myself or to draw adequately on the language at my command to convey the pain involved in this whole process of people being treated in this way. The Minister will know that I am not someone who goes over the top, I am not someone—I think that I am correct in saying this—who tries to make an easy debating point, but I have been appalled by the response of hospital cleaning workers in the Wirral. I want to draw the Minister's attention to that and ask him to take it on board before he starts the next stage of his privatisation programme.
Fifthly, some of my constituents will be worse off than if they were drawing the dole if they continue to work for the private company. What is the Minister's advice to my constituents? Should they reduce their living standards even further by remaining in work rather than signing on and drawing the dole? Do not the Government have some responsibility here—a responsibility to ensure that wage levels are not below what is paid to people who are unable to work? That is the fifth important question that I pose.
When the Select Committee on Social Services, in its sixth report, looked at privatisation it made a plea to the Government. This again was a Committee dominated by Government Members. It asked the Government, before continuing its privatisation programme, to
sponsor a wide-ranging study of the past and present experience
before embarking on any new stages of privatisation.
If this debate does nothing but get the Government to concede that point, it will have been well worth while.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: When I applied to Mr. Speaker to take part in a debate on this subject I did not realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had also applied. I am most grateful to him, because we have just listened to the sort of speech which this House believes represents the House at its best—that is, a speech which puts a very human face on people's problems. He has been able to make very real some of the facts, figures, statistics, papers, documents and circulars by putting into his speech the real people whom we all meet in our surgeries, the people who are doing the jobs as cleaners, the nurses, the patients and all the ancillary staff in hospitals and, of course, the people in the community too. I am, therefore, more than grateful that when it came to the choice my hon. Friend's speech, not mine, was made first. It was one of the clearest expositions that I have heard for some time, and, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not without knowledge of the National Health Service. I hope that it will have its due effect on the Under-Secretary.
In 1979 this Government's famous document entitled "Patients First" appeared. After six years, the policy could now read "profits first". This is not the first time that the Tory party has done a U-turn. As I recall, the first U-turn was by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and the late Iain Macleod, who wrote a most devastating pamphlet about how they were going to destroy the NHS when the Tory party got into office. Both were intelligent people, so what happened was that the right hon. Member for South Down became a very good Minister of Health for a short period, and the best Minister of Health the Conservatives have ever had in the House was the late Iain Macleod. I will go even further and say that the best Tory Minister on the Front Bench that I can recall was the late Iain Macleod.
I therefore draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is a very good case to be made for U-turns from time to time, and if anything that my hon. Friend has said causes him to take another look at the Prime Minister's diktat that there must be more privatisation, he has very good precedents to follow.
Tomorrow we shall be debating the collapse of nursing morale due to another report, the Griffiths report, but tonight we are drawing attention to a further disaster area for nurses—the whole field of privatising following the Government's acceptance of the Rayner report. As the Under-Secretary will recall, the House did not have the opportunity of a debate on that report, which was a pity. By the Consolidated Fund process we have been able, at long last, to get a debate tonight. The actions that have followed the publication of the Rayner report have been devastating for the National Health Service in the three areas concerning patient care—catering, cleaning and laundry. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity of re-reading "Patients First". It is always a good thing to go back and see what was said originally. I wish that the Prime Minister would re-read St. Francis of Assisi at some time and perhaps change her mind about some of the things that happened following that original quotation.
Of the three areas affecting patient care—catering cleaning and laundry—it is catering and cleaning that have the most disastrous effects on our nursing services. When we talk about nursing standards we are talking not

about something in a White Paper, but about the 100 years of tradition and experience since Florence Nightingale. Those standards were set by what used to be called the dragons of matrons, and they operated at nursing level where nurses met patients on the ward. The key person was the ward sister. She was in charge; it was her ward, her patients, her staff, her cleaners and her command over the food that went to the patients. If she was good—and 99·9 per cent. of the ward sisters were—that organisation was the finest management organisation ever seen, because she took a pride in what she was doing, in her ward and in her standards. It did not matter that she worked long hours. She did far more than her regular hours because a good ward sister will see her night nurses off at 7 o'clock in the morning and the next team of night nurses on at 7 o'clock in the evening.
Into this comes the privatising of cleaning and catering. No longer is the ward sister in charge. These things are out of her control and as standards slip this has an effect upon the nurses over whom she has authority, because, if it is good enough for the National Health Service to have standards of that kind, why should they slave their insides out to preserve their higher standards and traditions? The concept that ward sisters had pride and a personal interest in each of their suffering patients has been eroded by the privatisation of cleaning services.
I could quote several cases, but I wish to quote from a letter of which the Under-Secretary of State has received a copy. I was so appalled by what happened to a patient that I raised the matter with the hospital administration, the district health authority, the general manager of the regional health authority, Mr. Victor Paige, and the Minister for Health. Since I knew that the Under-Secretary of State would have to pick up the pieces for the Minister for Health, I made sure that he received a copy of the letter. It states:
Yesterday I left … after an operation and two weeks' stay. As usual the medical and nursing care couldn't be bettered but I am dismayed by the state of cleanliness in the ward.
When I was admitted the Sanibin in the ward lavatory was full to overflowing. Unfortunately patients continued to use it and it became really offensive. There was a bowl half full of dirty water behind the lavatory. Floating on top of the water was dirty toilet paper. On Saturday I spoke to the Charge Nurse about both of these things, she was able to get the water emptied but told me the Sanibin couldn't be emptied because it was the week-end. It was finally emptied on the Tuesday, in the meantime the lavatory was smelly and unpleasant.
The lavatory itself was never cleaned in the 2 weeks I was in the ward. The up and walking patients had no problem, they were able to use the lavatories in other areas during the day but this wasn't possible at night for patients with drips. On one occasion the lid, seat, under the seat, the rim of the pan and the pan itself was splashed with excrement. As I had to use the lavatory at night I had to clean it, and this I did twice.
The bathroom was thick with dust. I had to clean the surfaces of the table and the chair before I could put things down. I left the bottom shelf of the table so that you could see the state of place.
Whilst I was in the ward the cleaners came in twice. The first time one man went round the bits that were free with the vac. Another man sloshed a mop over the same bits and then the first went over with a polisher. At no time was any of the furniture moved"—
of course, it is a housewife speaking—
in fact it was fascinating to see the appliances go round patients' slippers and even visitors' feet. The floor at the back of the beds and lockers was never touched and was filthy.
At no time during the 2 weeks were the lockers and bedside tables wiped over. I was able to do my own but for patients confined to bed I found this disgusting.


Walking round the corridors on other floors there was the same look of dirt and neglect.
A great pity that a great hospital should come to this.
Patients first'? Patients must get out of bed and clean lavatories, yet the Government talk about putting patients first?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me in that there are 600 major hospital units and I am not carrying the details of this case in my head. Will he confirm that the cleaning at that hospital was carried out by a private contractor?

Mr. Pavitt: I was about to do so. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has tried to persuade the Government to privatise hospital services. I do not wish to attack the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had friendly relations on this issue, but he has business interests in the privatisation of hospital cleaning. As the House knows from the Official Report, 28 Conservative Members have business interests in cleaning firms. I mentioned this case to the hon. Gentleman in the Corridor because I have known him for some time. In consequence of that, I received a letter—my hon. Friends will not be surprised by this—from Messrs. Crothall and Co. which had provided the service at that hospital. The letter stated:
We have found that the type of person presenting themselves for employment as domestics is not always of good 'professional' calibre.
What can we expect when firms pay the sort of wages that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead? Wages and time are skimped and no proper training is given. There are no induction courses and no proper monitoring. What else can one expect from tendering? The point of tendering is to obtain a contract by putting in the lowest tender, so firms inevitably scrape the bottom of the barrel. They exploit the labour market.
The sad aspect of my hon. Friend's speech was his reference to the people—I know them well—who for years have proudly scrubbed floors in hospitals because they wanted to work there, but who no longer feel pride in working for such meagre wages.
After I received that letter, I examined the matter more seriously. I received a letter from a friend who is a hospital doctor who became a patient in another hospital where the cleaning services were contracted out. It is a different hospital, and Crothalls did not provide the cleaning services. His letter states:
The only time I saw a supervisor during my various stays was when she came to quarrel with me over my complaints about the standard of cleaning. As I was receiving cytotoxic drugs at the time I did not pursue the argument with her.
On that occasion my wife had cleaned all the horizontal surfaces in the room using the chlorhexidine hand soap and hand towels, including the sink in the bathroom and the toilet seat which was stained! She also got rid of the dead flies on the window ledge.
We are talking about the finest hospitals, not just in the country but in the world. The world follows what Britain does. But because some grubby little accountants are trying to make what they call economy savings, which are supposed to benefit patients, and are scrabbling about presenting documents to show that we have more money than ever before when in reality we have less, this sort of thing is bound to happen.
The ward sisters' position has changed in relation to catering services. The ward sister used to be proud of the fact that she had direct contacts with the in-house catering service, that she had known the chef and other workers for years, and that if her patients were not getting what she thought was the right food she could put the matter right directly and immediately. There was no question of her having to go through a unit manager, a district manager or a hospital administrator. Now, if patients are dissatisfied, they become like bus passengers who have waited a long time for a bus—they take it out on the conductor, not on the service. If the food is not right in a hospital, the nurses are on the receiving end of complaints. Just as the caterer must cut his tender to the limit to obtain the contract, so the food is cut. Sometimes the meat is cut with a razor blade.
Dissatisfied and unhappy patients complain to their nurses, who in turn complain to the kitchen. The complaint is probably recorded on a triplicate form, the hospital administrator brings it to the attention of the district health authority, and six months later, after the patient has been long dead or has gone home, something may be done. It is a wearisome business, and I do not blame good nurses for thinking that this is not what they were trained for and that they should not have to face such hazards. Ward morale has decreased greatly. Although the ward sister used to think in terms of, "My ward and my patients under my control", now she might say, "I am not too far away from retirement, and perhaps I can manage until then."
On the privatisation of laundry services, the Under-Secretary of State may not realise that I was able to effect a change when laundry services in my area were privatised. I represent a constituency in north-west London, yet the contract was given to a firm in Birmingham. I do not understand how that happened. I have two major district general hospitals. One is the Central Middlesex, world-famous at one time for gastroenterology; the other is Northwick Park, which was funded jointly with the Medical Research Council. Strangely enough, I was on both the regional board and the health council at the time when that hospital was created as a clinical research centre.
A few years ago the Central Middlesex hospital laundry was entirely refurbished at a cost of nearly £500,000, so that it could take on the laundry work of Northwick Park, a sensible management arrangement. What happened? The Northwick Park contract was put out and accepted by a private company. This meant that the whole of that investment was made redundant. I ask the Minister whether he will consider this matter. Does he realise that, when an in-house tender is defeated by a lower tender from outside, he is dealing with a three-year contract? At the end of that period, if the whole of the laundry machinery has been sent for scrap metal elsewhere and dismantled the hospital is entirely at the mercy of whatever price the laundry company demands.
The Government's case is that money can be saved towards the expense of running the service if it is privatised. In other words, although shareholders must be paid a large profit, a better service will be obtained, money will be saved and that money can reduce the demands on the Exchequer from the Department of Health and Social Security. In reality, this saving is made at the expense of nurses, patients and hospital staff. I cannot think of a better illustration of this than was given by my hon. Friend the


Member for Birkenhead. I will treasure what he said, because he dealt with everything that I would have like to say, in a far more succinct fashion, on behalf of all of us who, at some time or another, have needed the care and attention for which we will be eternally grateful.
Privatisation is like a cancerous growth, imported from another world with other techniques, other approaches to things rather than to people, interested purely in material gain and money to be turned over. That cancer is eating at the heart of one of the greatest health services in the world.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I recall the advice that I was once given, that if I were ever to make a public speech I should not make apologies in the course of it. I have to begin with two apologies, which makes it a doubly bad effort. The first is to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others, particularly the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for being late and missing the beginning of his speech. The other is in advance to the Minister for perhaps not being able to stay to hear the whole of his reply to the debate. Given that I am heading north to Ross, Cromarty and Skye very shortly, he will appreciate that my time is somewhat limited. With those two caveats, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
What we have heard—and I hope that the Minister will concur—are two profoundly sensible contributions, in that neither speaker tonight has gone for straight opposition to Government policy, nor dismissed the need to find savings within the health budget, which all of us recognise are there to be found. Legitimate savings can be ploughed back, as Government rhetoric says, into better standards of patient care. They have instead pointed out the difficulty, and, indeed, the stupidity at times, of putting a political doctrine in the way of finding genuine solutions at local level, for better standards of care, through more money released by means of greater efficiency and effectiveness.
What disturbs and annoys me greatly about the whole health and welfare state debate is that it is always the Government who portray themselves as the only ones concerned about getting value for money, which is not true. We are all concerned about achieving that objective. Where we begin to part company from the Government is in believing that what is at times a ruthless pursuit of predetermined political criteria is the only means by which value for money can be achieved. I am not convinced of this. From what I have seen—and the privatisation debate is the classic example—the most sensible approach, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, is to leave health authorities to decide how best to run things in their own area.
Ross, Cromarty and Skye is perhaps not absolutely typical of the rest of the country, but I can think of examples where it is impossible in my own area to have in-house ancillary services of one sort or another. They have to be privatised, and it has always been so. But it strikes me that when a health authority, or a health board, as it is north of the border, such as the Highlands health board—which is neither true blue nor about to fly a red flag above its headquarters in Inverness—finds that the circulars which it receives from the Scottish Home and Health Department continually emphasise the need to go further with privatisation, and this causes it administrative

problems and runs counter to the commonsense organisation of health care in that part of the country, the Government should think twice about being quite so dogmatic—if I may use that favoured, SDP-ish word—in their approach.
As the debate is about the effect of the privatisation policy on carers, I am in one respect rather relieved that we are not now going into the situation of and arguments about carers, because the subject of carers is worthy of a full-scale parliamentary debate. I know that other Members present take an interest in this matter. It is an aspect on which the privatisation programme can have a profound effect. In my own party, I have in the past two years been involved in drawing up a carers' charter. I shall not stand on a soapbox and read out all the details of that charter, but I believe that what it suggests would command cross-party support. Indeed, I know that it does.
When we are examining any system of delivery of health care to help the informal section of the welfare state, without which the welfare state would collapse, under any political programme, we must take particular account of privatisation because it can greatly affect the ability of the carer to have access to the sources of information and to the support mechanisms available in the community, particularly with the care in the community programme, the difficulties facing social services departments because of rate support grant policy, and so on. That is a huge debate in itself and I do not want to get into it tonight, but it is worth considering.
One cannot take a national view on privatisation. There are different circumstances in different localities. The best way to run the Health Service is to run it at local level, or as near to that as is attainable consistent with a National Health policy, in a way which reflects the needs and aspirations or demands of a particular community.
One of the difficulties about privatisation is the effect upon those in the ancillary services, who find a privatisation policy being railroaded through against the better discretion of those at local level, as we have heard vividly this evening. Therefore, the position of staff, be it in terms of the Whitley rates, conditions of employment or whatever, is seriously eroded.
One cannot have a business which is the biggest civilian employer in western Europe without some wastage and inefficiency. That is self-evident. But all who support the Health Service must also recognise that the marvellous thing about it is the sense of community within the hospitals. Every time I visit a hospital I am struck by the fact that the patient, who is, after all, the end product and what we are most concerned about, responds, not only to the care that he is given by the nurse, the doctor, or the consultant, but also, as has been pointed out, to the physical environment around him. Therefore, to try to hive off parts of the Health Service which are regarded as almost expendable is an act of folly if that is pursued ruthlessly with no regard to the circumstances in a particular hospital. That is the great danger of the privatisation programme that is being pushed through by the Government. There is somehow a suggestion in the phrase "ancillary services" that they are peripheral to the concept of recovery and care, yet we know that they are not. Those who provide food and make sure that the facilities are clean are as important as those who provide the immediate nursing and the medical talents for diagnosis and cure.
It is when one begins to lose sight of the human dimension and begins to subject human beings to the rigours and tyranny of the profit and loss account of a balance sheet that one begins to lose sight of the principles and ethics which underlie Britain's Health Service.
I welcome this brief debate. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the fact that savings, efficiency and so on are extremely important. Where they lead to greater money being released for improved patient care they are welcome. However, one cannot subjugate entirely the importance of patients, a community and a team spirit, particularly within a hospital, to such rigours. The danger, as we have seen from the Griffiths report and the appointment of general managers and the privatisation programme, is that Ministers are too willing to intervene to push their policy in the face of higher standards which could be achieved and yet which, sadly, in many cases, as we have heard, are not being achieved.

Ms. Harriet Harman: My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) have dealt comprehensively and tellingly with the effect of privatisation on the Health Service. I should like to add an extra dimension, the effect of privatisation on the social services.
By definition, it is the most vulnerable and dependent members of a community who need social services—people who are physically or mentally disabled, children and the very elderly. Moreover, all families will need support services at some stage, whether it be a nursery place for a small child or help at home for elderly people, perhaps living on his own or with a family to help the family to cope.
The most vulnerable and dependent people need services on which they can depend. We in the community are entitled to expect that frail and vulnerable people will be properly looked after; that they receive the services that they want; that the services are of a high quality; that they should have a say in those services; that services will help their families to care rather than leaving them overburdened; that they should have a continuity of service on which they can rely; that the services should be provided by staff who are properly trained; and that the services are planned to meet people's needs.
Those objectives can best be met, and are met, by services provided by the community for the community—that means local authorities, health authorities and also the contribution made by voluntary organisations where they are properly funded by the Government or at local level.
I am not complacent about public sector social services or voluntary sector welfare services. Although there are many excellent and popular services in the public sector, there are still many problems. Those problems could be minimised if the Government took a lead in encouraging good practice and provided local authorities with the resources which they need and which they say they want in order to expand, develop and improve the services that their communities need. But that is not happening. The Government are telling councils to spend less and to contract out existing social services.
Councils throughout Britain are meeting an increasing demand for social services. Handicapped babies who

might in earlier times have died at birth or had a short life expectancy can now be saved and look forward to a normal life span, but they and their families need support services. People who have disabling accidents or disabling diseases which in the past may have killed them now have a much greater life expectancy, but again they and their families need support services. An increasing number of elderly, particularly the very elderly, need support services, and there is an increasing demand for services due to unemployment. That has been well documented by the Association of Directors of Social Services. The increasing number of mothers with small children seeking work means a growing demand for services for children.
Yet the Government brand as irresponsible councils which want to expand such services to meet the growing need that they see in their areas. At the same time as the Government are telling councils to spend less, the Government are apparently prepared to spend limitless sums to finance an explosion in private profit-making companies providing welfare services.
The problems of privatisation of welfare services are vividly illustrated in the privatisation of services for the elderly. Let us consider residential care for the elderly. The Government are telling councils to hold social services spending. With the growing number of elderly, that will mean that services to people in their own homes, such as home helps, are spread more and more thinly. Home care services are real care in the community. They enable people to remain independent in their own homes for as long as possible; people who might otherwise be at risk from a fall or sudden illness. The home care service can also support families coping with a disabled relative who, without that support, might well feel that they could not go on caring.
Therefore, the Government's squeeze on council spending, which prevents council domiciliary services from expanding to meet the growing need, means that people who might otherwise have remained at home must go into an institution, which is the very opposite of care in the community.
Council provision of residential care has been at a virtual standstill because of the Government's spending squeeze in the past few years. Therefore, the increase in demand for residential care, which is fuelled by the lack of domiciliary services, as well as by the aging population, is pushed into the mushrooming private profit-making sector. Really, it is a misnomer to call it a private sector because, although it is profit-making, it is booming at public expense. The Department of Health and Social Security pays up to £180 per person per week in a private residential home. A modest 20-bed home can therefore earn £3,600 per week at the expense of the DHSS. At a time when the Government are nailing council spending to the floor, DHSS spending on private old folks' homes rose from £10 million per year in 1979 to £190 million per year in 1984. That is, on the Government's own figures, an increase of over 2,000 per cent. Taxpayers' money has been deliberately diverted from care in the community, provided by the community, towards institutions run for profit.
The risks faced by the elderly and vulnerable people in the private residential care sector are well known. The evidence from America, where private residential care is well established, is all bad. Not only are there cases of gross neglect and exploitation, where home owners put profit before care; it is also clear that the services provided


are the services which are profitable rather than those which are needed. What is profitable is long-term institutionalisation. Therefore, regimes to rehabilitate elderly people or services to keep people at home disappear. One cannot plan on the basis of good social policy when the free market provides services only when and where it is most profitable.
The American pattern is already beginning to take a grip here. Numerous cases of appalling conditions in private old folks' homes have come to light. I have often complained to the Government about particular homes. For example, I complained about the Inglehurst nursing home in Blackpool, where the owners engaged in twice-daily drinking sprees, failed to adminster drugs safely and fed their residents inadequately, and where there was inadequate staffing and residents were kept in squalor. After I raised that case with the Government, the Minister investigated and the home has since been closed, but not before receiving £50,000 a year from the DHSS—a direct subsidy from the public to the private sector. It is not just physical ill-treatment of the elderly in private homes that causes concern; there is also the problem of fraud.

Mr. Whitney: While the hon. Lady is dealing with badly run homes, would she tell the House about the problem of Nye Bevan lodge with which she is rather familiar?

Ms. Harman: The Southwark council investigated the allegations about Nye Bevan lodge. That investigation was submitted to the officials of the DHSS. The DHSS was directed to conduct a further inquiry into residential care of the elderly and children in Southwark and found good standards of care and residential provision. Therefore, the matter has been settled; I am surprised that the Minister raised it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to mislead the House. The inquiry was into other homes and other residential provisions. There are still matters relating to Nye Bevan lodge in terms of internal administration and reforms, which are the responsibility of the local authority, on which we have not had any final report or any disciplinary or other action.

Ms. Harman: The reason why the inquiry of the DHSS was into residential care homes other than Nye Bevan lodge is that DHSS officials were satisfied with the council's internal inquiry into the lodge. It would have been a scandalous waste of public funds to investigate the same incident twice.
When I raised two cases of fraud on the DHSS by private homes in Kent, the Government took no action. It is impossible to guarantee the maintenance of high standards behind the closed doors of a private old folks' home. The Government will no doubt point to the code of practice "Home Life", which is excellent, but which is not legally enforceable. The Government might point to the new fees for private homes, but they have still to bring them before the House and, in any case, they are still not enough.
There is still a basic problem in trying to enforce any standards in private homes. There is a built-in and serious disincentive to councils taking action against private homes which fall below standard, because there is only

one sanction—de-registration. If a council de-registers, it knows that it will have the old folk from that home on its doorstep. Councils cannot cope with existing demands, let alone deal with additional people who would need care if they were to close substandard private homes in their areas. Even the best intentioned councils are affected by that severe disincentive, because it is the council which has to inspect the homes and register them or apply for them to be de-registered, and it is the council which has to deal with the effect of that de-registration. Private companies know that, and they are cashing in on care in a big way.
It is not only the Conservative party which puts the interests of private business before the needs of our elderly. It is also the Liberals. The Liberals on Hammersmith and Fulham council voted only last night to continue with the sale of Stewart lodge, a council old people's home, to a private company—Associated Nursing Services Ltd. The council plans to sell Stewart lodge as a job lot, the home and the people in it. The 29 residents—whose average age is 88 years—are to be sold with the building, whether they like it or not. Associated Nursing Services Ltd. will apparently arrange a share issue to finance this lucrative purchase.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was quick on his feet inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to denounce Southwark council, which I hope she did. Will he now willingly spring to his feet and dissociate himself from the extraordinary sale in Fulharn?

Ms. Harman: I can advise my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already said that he disapproves of the sale.
I have mentioned that if Associated Nursing Services Ltd. can win this contract it will make a share issue to finance it. I should like to read to the House from an investment brochure such as is likely to be sent out by Associated Nursing Services Ltd. It is a different brochure, but it is on the same lines. The brochure sets out how companies attract investment to expand.
The brochure was issued by Investment and Pensions Advisory Service in Surrey. It says:
The first absolute priority for Mrs. Thatcher and her Government is to bring public spending under greater control, and already there has been much talk about cutbacks in the National Health Service. This is of course a very emotive move—so the Government can undoubtedly be expected to seek reductions in the most painless manner possible.
It is hardly surprising, then, to learn that they have indicated their wish to ease the burden on the community of looking after the aged and infirm. These people can hardly be regarded as a 'vociferous pressure group,' after all!
The brochure goes on to say:
Financial experts now take the view that nursing homes for elderly people are likely to become a growth industry. And that, because of the special circumstances described above, this growth will continue through bad years as well as good.
Through the business expansion scheme where investment is subsidised by the Government, Mrs. Thatcher can effectively influence the switch of emphasis to private care in this area.
That is exactly what she has been doing.
The brochure finally says that investment in old folks' homes is a
lucrative long-term opportunity for large-scale capital growth.
That is how the Tories and the Liberals in Fulham see our elderly—merely as fodder for a lucrative long-tern opportunity for large-scale capital growth. Even if the


council can claim that Associated Nursing Services has never been caught out ill-treating the elderly from whom it is making its money, what is to stop Associated Nursing Services from selling the home to a disreputable company? Fulham council must think again.
In a letter dated 11 March, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, admitted to me:
It is not Liberal Party policy to privatise homes without consultation with residents and their families.
That is exactly what is happening in Fulham. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman went on to wash his hands of it all and to say:
it is not our policy for the party centrally to dictate to local councils what actions they should take".

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady said, fairly, that, when she raised the matter with me, I stated my view to her. She has quoted the letter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). These are important points. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that it is not the job of the law to dictate to local authorities. The Labour party and my party stand up strongly for that. The concern that this issue arouses is sufficient, without either my right hon. Friend or me knowing the facts, for me to assure the hon. Lady that tomorrow I shall find out the facts from colleagues in Hammersmith and Fulham. My right hon. Friend proposes to deal more fully and helpfully with the specific issue. Clearly, we cannot comment on that issue until we know the facts, the motivation and the thinking behind the actions of borough councillors.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman should have obtained the facts before, because I raised this issue with him last week. He has had a number of days to look into it. I wrote to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about a week ago on this issue. If he is staying quiet about it, it is because he has something to hide rather than because he does not know about it.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: What the hon. Lady has just said is accurate. Can she confirm that I have not stayed quiet? In fact, we have discussed the matter.

Ms. Harman: I do not remember that issue being discussed by the hon. Gentleman and me. If we have discussed it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to remind the House of his position—whether he is for or against the sale, whether he is for the principle of services being provided by the community for the community or, indeed, whether he has any principles at all.

Mr. Kennedy: I think that the hon. Lady genuinely believes that we have not discussed the issue. We have discussed it. I hope that she recalls that I said that I would investigate the facts more fully but that my view was exactly in line with the view just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the sensible view to take? I hope that she is not taking the draconian view on local choice and decision making which is the hallmark of the Conservative party.

Ms. Harman: We are certainly in the forefront of those opposing the Government's measures in replacing local

government by edicts from Whitehall. We stand firmly for principles. In this case, we are discussing principles of defence and a determination to protect the elderly and the most vulnerable in the community.

Mr. Frank Field: It is extraordinarily interesting to see the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) jumping around giving us their line. The real question is: where does the candidate in Fulham stand? Does the candidate back the local council or the leader of the Liberal party?

Ms. Harman: In America they call it granny farming. Is that what the Liberals in Fulham are backing? The Labour group of councillors in Fulham, who would be in the majority were it not for the Liberals uniting with the Tories, are strenuously opposing the sale. I hope that they will succeed.
It is also the staff who suffer when welfare services are privatised. To boost profits, companies cut costs. By far the major cost in social services is staff wages. Caring staff are already low paid and, in the private sector, they get poverty wages. This means that there is a high turnover of staff as well as exploitation, which means poorer services, as staff are demoralised, lack of continuity and lack of experience.
The Government have a deliberate policy of undermining community services and using public money to finance private welfare services. We really need a good range of welfare services at local level provided according to who needs them, not just to those who can afford them, so that the individuals can choose the service that suits them. Those services should be provided by the community for the community. We must go no further down the American road.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): We have had a particularly interesting debate in which, at one stage, it seemed that Conservative Members were redundant, given the interesting exchanges between the various Opposition parties.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) started the debate on an odd note. The Government were either congratulated or accused—one can take one's pick—of launching a second front in competitive tendering. The hon. Gentleman said that that concept was based on reports in several newspapers in the past few days, but as he continued it became clear that it was based on one small report in his favourite newspaper, by, I suspect, his favourite correspondent. That story was garnered at lunchtime on Monday when our mutual friend, the correspondent, was invited to a buffet lunch given by a contracting firm to which we have not awarded contracts and which is rather upset that we have not done so.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman seems to prove the Prime Minister's point—that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Mr. Whitney: I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that he should be careful in his newspaper reading and not believe everything that he reads in the press. Basing much of his speech on the press has proved to be his undoing.
The hon. Gentleman was indignant about the idea of a management fee approach. In effect, he said that it was a


licence to print money. He is probably right. That is why, as far as I know, none of the contracts awarded by the health authorities has been given on that basis. Those contracts are not within the direct gift of the DHSS. Not surprisingly, therefore, the hosts at the lunch were not pleased with the competitive tendering policy. Our mutual friend, the correspondent, had a jolly little lunch and at least gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead the starting point of his speech.
Much the same applied to our rather truncated tour around the country. I accept that this is a serious subject, but the hon. Gentleman tried to take us to the Attenborough hospital. Attenborough is all to do with wildlife and making films about Gandhi. The hon. Gentleman was referring to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have visited that hospital and was deeply impressed. Of course I asked, "What is this story we are told by the Opposition?" The story was told twice tonight. I should imagine that the same story has been recycled by the Opposition 100 or 200 times in Hansard. Far from finding deep, dissatifaction among the patients, nurses or any of the other 5,000 staff working in Addenbrooke's hospital, I found general satisfaction with the contracting services there.

Mr. Pavitt: I had the privilege last Wednesday of speaking to the Royal College of Nursing in Cambridge. I assure the Minister that the impression that I gained was the opposite to his.

Mr. Whitney: We shall have to rest with our differences. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) may have been looking for different things, but the first thing that I was looking for was the level of satisfaction at that hospital.
I would not claim, as I said in an earlier intervention, to be able to provide instantly details of every hospital contract in Croydon. If there are mistakes or failures to meet standards they must be rectified, and rectified rigorously.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead seemed to be concerned about the situation in Barking. He seemed to be concerned about the reduction in the annual Health Service bill there from £367,000 to £211,000. To most people, the concept of a £157,000 saving to put back into the Health Service, into patient care, to pay nurses or for other purposes would be welcome. One might even have thought that such a concept would be welcome to Opposition Members.
As the debate progressed, the other main element of the Opposition's concern was revealed. The Opposition are concerned about the staff. We are all concerned about the staff and there must be good working conditions and adequate wage rates. We must, however, get our priorities right.
The hon. Member for Brent, South justly reminded the House of the excellent pamphlet issued by my party "Patients First". I assure the House that that policy has by no means changed. We believe that the patients come first. Therefore, the employees must not come first. Of course there must be proper treatment for employees, but the balance must be right. The Health Service, the Army and the Civil Service do not exist primarily, first and last, for those who work in those institutions. The Health Service is for patients, and we must use our resources to maximum

effect. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South for underlining what is happening in Barking as an example of the achievements that are being recorded.

Mr. Field: I do not really want to interrupt the Minister in his stride, as he is well into his speech now and it is a pleasure to hear him in this form. I did not say, when using the Barking example, that the contract was not being fulfilled. I did not give any information that that contract was not being fulfilled. However, I wanted to know whether the Minister found it disturbing that a price tag of £367,000 had been reduced to £211,000. In this situation, either the company is getting a fair return and doing its job properly, which is to the good and we are pleased about that—

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Indeed.

Mr. Field: I was not making that point. My point was about why a higher price had been charged for 16 years. Should we not be concerned that that company was making such a rip-off?

Mr. Whitney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I welcome him aboard. He spoke about the concept of companies making profits. I agree with him that if for 16 years we had been spending too much in that direction—I make no party point about which Government were in power—we should bear the blame equally.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, equally between the Conservative and Labour parties.

Mr. Whitney: I shall shortly come to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I hope we can agree that the situation should have been put right 15 or 16 years ago. We must now agree that the situation has been put right.

Mr. Field: Clearly this is a company to watch. I asked whether the Minister would back the Tory-controlled Wirral health authority, which is raising serious objections to being forced to privatise the Clatterbridge health services to that very company.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to take me further on and I hope to respond to most or all of his points in my speech. Obviously I can make no comment on a particular bid of a particular company in a particular health authority. That is for the health authority to decide.
Our policy is clear, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so I should like to pursue it. We believe in patients first, and we agree that the employees of the Health Service deserve, and must have, proper treatment. The hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Brent, South came close to, indeed I believe that they arrived at, the point where they suggested that the Health Service exists for the benefit of the employees.

Mr. Pavitt: I apologise for interrupting so often in the Minister's speech, but he is wrong in the parallels that he is drawing, because employees, patients and all the staff—medical, ancillary and persons in the professions supplementary to medicine—are one unique organisation. The Civil Service, Army and industry are different bodies entirely. His equation of those two things does not match the experience of caring for patients and the integration of those working with and for the patients and the patients themselves. Therefore, by regarding


employees as one lot and patients as another, the Minister is showing his ignorance of the concept of the Health Service.

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman goes round the wards at Addenbrooke's hospital, for example, he will find, as I found by talking to the staff and to the patients, that there has been no diminution of the high quality factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred and understands very well and which I modestly claim I recognise and to which the Government aspire.
We are looking for resources to put to patients. The hon. Member for Birkenhead wanted to know whether the Government are satisfied that privatisation has increased the standard of service. I cannot answer that globally, because there are so many contracts. The great majority are in-house—the same people are involved—and consist of similar teams to those to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred. These teams are producing the tenders and are winning many of them. We make sure that that is done on a fair and level basis. We have had to issue guidance on that. I am glad that that has been done and copies of the guidance are available in the Library.
We must be clear. The suggestion seems to be that before the policy was introduced—it is not a startlingly new policy, as it is now about two years old—all was perfect sweetness and light. The impression is that everything was clean before and the sister wiped her finger on the surface and nothing came away. Hon. Gentlemen will know that that was not the case. If they do not know that, they should talk, as I have done, to the ladies of the WRVS, who work in hospitals all over the country. They will tell hon. Gentlemen that standards were falling. What about the Wakefield inquiry and the problems at Stanley Royd? Appalling things went on there. Were they due to privatisation and to an outside contractor? Of course they were not.
We should not accept that everything is wonderful in the public sector because everything is devoted to the common good and that no supervision or management is necessary, or that everything is bad in the private sector. Each sector has its problems, and each requires its own management.
I must make it clear that, before the contents of a bid are agreed, health authorities must draw up careful specifications, and consult carefully with all those concerned, including the staff side. They will write into contracts a whole variety of additional points, including the provision of flowers in the wards or whatever. There are perfectly good opportunities to ensure that those standards are monitored, and monitored they are. In some cases fines have been imposed on contracting companies where those standards have not been met.
I remind the House that we are considering the expenditure of nearly £1 billion on three areas. Savings to the end of September were running at about £29 million a year, and we shall look for more up-to-date figures shortly. Certainly those savings are worth while and are going back into the NHS for patient care. I hope that the hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Brent, South will be prepared to look more favourably at that, given their known concern for the care of patients.
I was at a loss, as I often am, to discover the particular view of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye

(Mr. Kennedy), charming though he is. He was in favour of savings, the economic use of resources, the community, team spirit, and something which I think he called "patriotism". I, too, am in favour of all that. That is splendid. However, I was not sure whether he was in favour of privatisation.

Mr. Kennedy: I made the point extremely clearly, and it stuck in my mind because I noticed nods from both sides of the House, and I thought I saw a look of comprehension on the Minister's face. That shows how beguiling he can be. I said that if we wanted efficiency and savings to be ploughed into patient care, as we all do, the most sensible policy was to allow health authorities to decide on the most prudent, commonsense standard and nature of delivery of service in their area. I mentioned my constituency, where a privatised service makes no sense because we have no competition as it is such a remote part. Therefore, the service must be in-house. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot comprehend my point, although I can understand the Whip not comprehending it, as he was not present.

Mr. Whitney: I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman on board our basic policy of devolving responsibility to health authorities. However, that does not imply a complete abandonment of policies from the centre, because the Government are responsible for taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman may never have that experience, but central Government are responsible for allocations. He cannot get away with the easy happy-to-agree-with platitude of having as much local autonomy as possible, and team spirit.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister said that he welcomed the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on board for his policy of delegating power, but that is the opposite of what the Government have done. Will the Minister tell us where he stands? Is he 100 per cent. behind the Tory-controlled Wirral health authority, which wrote to him deploring the fact that the Government were forcing it to privatise a cleaning service? Do the Government believe in local control, or in "daddy knows best", as we have seen tonight? I suspect that the latter is their philosophy.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman was a little too quick to intervene. He intervened halfway through my remarks and failed to hear the second part, which is that the Government dispense such huge sums as £17 billion and so must strike a balance. Our policy makes it clear that we believe that competitive tendering provides more money for the NHS, and so for patient care. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing the striking example of Barking health authority, which produced a 60 per cent. saving in one small area for patient care.

Mr. Kennedy: We are overstaying our welcome, but the Minister accused me of wanting it both ways. He then gave us a big lecture about decentralisation and said "On the other hand, we are expending vast sums of taxpayers' money and must have responsibility". Will he come off the fence and tell us whether he is wet or dry? What is he saying? Does he believe in devolved powers or not?

Hon. Members: Dry.

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for identifying where I stand on that spectrum. I am still at a loss to know whether the hon. Gentleman supports the


Government in our concept that competitive tendering is producing good results for the NHS. To the end of September 1985 it produced annual savings of £29 million. If we had followed the hon. Gentleman's "hands-off" policy, that saving would not have been made, and £29 million would not have been available for patient care.
I have detained the House for longer than I intended, because of our stimulating exchanges, but I do not wish to sit down until I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). As is customary from the Front Bench, she produced a shopping list of expenditure which we were invited to consider. She suggested that great damage had been done. I offer the House some figures which will show that the hon. Lady is somewhat misguided about the impact of Government policies on personal social services since 1979.
Expenditure on the NHS has increased in real terms by more than 20 per cent., and the House knows the figures for the increase in patient care. At the same time, similar increases have occurred in the coverage of social services. Local authority personal social service expenditure between 1978–79 and 1984–85 increased by 19 per cent. in real terms. The number of social workers increased by no less than 25 per cent. The impression that some terrible harm has been done to social services does poor justice to the way in which local authorities have managed their affairs, given the significant increases in real terms both in financial and human resources.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister accept that the increase in spending on social services can barely keep pace with the enormous increase in demand, which I outlined, and that the increase in spending is largely attributable to Labour local authorities refusing to accept the Government's strictures to make cuts? The Minister cannot have it both ways, and both claim the credit for an increase in spending and seek to make cuts. He will undoubtedly hope that rate capping will bring an end to that increased spending which Labour councils have valiantly maintained.

Mr. Whitney: I am ready to agree that too many Labour councils have had to be rate capped because of the increase in their local authority's spending. Such an increase is not necessarily spending on personal social services. It may well be on newsletters for strange sects, minority groups or whatever. The figures show that personal social services have increased by 19 per cent. and the number of social workers has increased by no less than 25 per cent.

Mr. Pavitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sure that he will forgive me. Such global

figures never look the same in our own patch. My authority is rate capped. We have more social workers, but the demand for them is fantastically much higher. We had the tragic case of child abuse—the Minister has seen the report—of Jasmine Beckford. If the Minister goes through the report—the result of that case—he will see that there were insufficient funds available during the period of rate capping. More social workers are needed for child abuse cases.

Mr. Whitney: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the tragic and desperate case of Jasmine Beckford and the other awful cases have nothing to do with a shortage of resources. The tragic case of Jasmine Beckford was due to failure of supervision and failure of management. It was certainly nothing to do with a shortage of resources.
The hon. Member for Peckham dwelt at some length on the question of providing more home helps. We agree that there should be more home helps. I am therefore glad to take the credit for the fact that since we came to power there has been an increase of 13 per cent. in the number of home helps.
I was extremely puzzled by the title of the motion, which refers to carers and the privatisation of welfare services, because the foundation of our welfare services continues to be based on statutory provision—the National Health Service and the social services departments in the local authorities. Opposition Members are disturbed by the fact that we are seeking to use those services more economically, to generate more services to be used for those who require care—patients in hospitals or the young or elderly—and by the fact that we are looking forward in the personal social services area to mobilising society. We do not wish to see care left entirely to statutory provision and we are introducing methods whereby we can support individual carers—friends, the family and voluntary organisations.
Government support to voluntary organisations has increased from £7·5 million to no less than £30 million. The hon. Member for Peckham objected to the fact that our increase in the amount of social security spending on residential care provision has increased—I shall use her figure, which I shall accept for the moment—by 2,000 per cent. The hon. Lady seemed to find that objectionable.
We have a fine record in combining the benefits of state provision—we have increased that provision, as has been shown by the magnitude of the figures—and at the same time we have created a framework whereby the people need not rely solely on the state, solely on the local authorities, which is what the Labour party looks for. We have brought about greater co-operation and co-ordination of provisions. We are proud of that record.

Education (Parental Choice)

Mr. Michael Portillo: I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the subject of parental choice in education. This has necessitated a change in my plans for this evening because I had intended to go to Fulham to lend my support at the adoption meeting of the Conservative candidate for the forthcoming by-election, the excellent Mr. Matthew Carrington. Nonetheless, it is a greater opportunity for me to address the House on this subject. I am gratified to see such a good attendance on the Tory side of the House—a large and spontaneous attendance by my hon. Friends—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does not the Conservative attendance contrast with the total lack of alliance representation? Does this not reveal their lack of interest in education, especially in parental choice?

Mr. Portillo: The only point that I will make in response to my hon. Friend is that he was charitable in not mentioning that the Labour party has only one representative in the Chamber.
This subject is of tremendous importance. It has moved close to the top of our political agenda for a number of reasons. The more we analyse the economic problems that the country suffers, and the difficulties of British industry in competition, the more we are driven to conclude that the shortcomings of our education system must have a great deal to do with that problem. Sadly, there are large numbers of young people emerging from our schools today with no paper qualifications. However, they also lack many of the basic life skills that would equip them for later life and for employment. That has left British industry, and the Government through the Manpower Services Commission, with the tremendous task of having to train young people to equip them for the jobs that are available. This accounts for the substantial paradox with which we have to grapple in many places where there co-exists a high rate of unemployment and a high level of vacancies. That is true of Fulham, an area which I have come to know well.
On a recent visit to Japan I was struck by what one could almost term the obsession of Japanese parents with the subject of education. It is evident that Japanese parents are willing to make tremendous sacrifices so that their children can have a good education. If one attempts to account for the fact that that country is successful industrially and economically, one is driven to the conclusion that there is a striking correlation between a high degree of motivation among the people for improving their education and the success of their industry.
This intense interest in education is also witnessed in Britain. As I go round my constituency I am struck by the number of people for whom education is the most important topic in their lives. Among the matters with which they expect politicians to deal, education is the most important. The tremendous concern that parents feel for their children's education is not limited to any one class. It is certainly not limited to the middle classes. It is something which is of interest to people of all sorts. They are willing to make tremendous sacrifices and to undergo hardship so that their children can be given a better education.
Today, many of those parents are concerned, worried and anxious about what is going on. The basis of that anxiety for many of them is that they feel that their children are not getting as good an education as they got. It is surprising that as our country continues to grow economically and makes steps forward in many ways, none the less, parents feel that their children are not doing as well in school, nor learning as much, as they did. They are concerned at the lack of basic skills taught to their children, and at the lack of discipline and poorer results, and are anxious about whether their children are well equipped for going into employment. Some people in education will try to tell those parents that what they perceive to be the truth is not so. Those parents may be told that they should not judge by examination results and that there is much more to education than examination results, and children should be allowed to learn at their own pace what they want, and when they want.
A vital step needs to be taken. Parents should be supplied with a much more objective measurement of the achievements of schools and of the output of education. One of the problems that parents face in arriving at judgments is that our public examinations tend to be graderelated—that is to say, the number of children getting a pass at a particular level will tend to be a constant percentage year by year. That is why I am so full of praise for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the initiative that he has taken in proposing the introduction of the GCSE, which will provide us with more objective criteria. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to build on that, so that parents can be equipped with better quality measurements of what is going on in education.
It is incredible how difficult it is today for parents to obtain the information on which to base their judgments and choices. My mind is driven to something that I read in The London Standard on 7 March about ILEA. The article said:
The authority's highly-respected research and statistics branch has compiled a list showing how schools are performing, making allowances for the number of bright, average and below average children each school starts out with.
That is important research, which would be valuable to parents. However, The London Standard goes on to say:
The document … is on the ILEA's Top Secret List, with access only by a few officials and politicians … It is part of the secrecy rife at the ILEA.
That is the sort of information that parents should have a right to know and it is important not only for parents, but for the Government, who have rightly been arguing that the important thing in education is not merely the money that goes in but the quality that comes out. If we are to counter the simplistic idea that we can measure the standard of education by the amount of money put into it, we must have better information, and I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, and urge them to go further.
My thesis is that we can improve education in the state sector by giving parents more information, more rights and more control over their children's education. The traditional strength of our state system has been due to two factors. The first was the absolute quality of that education, which in the post-war years was undoubted. The second was the chance that it gave children of all classes and from deprived backgrounds to fulfil their potential.
Recently, I was disturbed to read in a speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), speaking in his constituency, figures for the entry of working class children to universities, expressed as a percentage of the overall entrants. In 1955, the figure was 25 per cent. and it rose in 1968 to 35 per cent. That was an encouraging rise in a fairly short time. Unfortunately, since then the picture has become much less satisfactory. By 1973, the figure was down to 23 per cent., and by 1981 it was down to little more than 19 per cent. That latter contrasts with the much higher figure achieved as early as the 1920s. It is sad to think that in this respect we are in a worse position than we were more than half a century ago.
It would be absurd of anybody to try to blame this situation on teachers. Schools are on the whole extremely anxious to respond to the needs of the nation and the wishes of the parents, but it is difficult for individual teachers and schools to do so. In the present system, they do not have the flexibility or autonomy that would enable them to do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will be replying to the debate, in a recent speech to the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges, made an interesting comment. He said that our education system was both national and fragmented. To the extent that it is national and nationalised, I think that it suffers from some of the classic faults of institutions in our country that are nationalized—that is to say, a lack of responsiveness to its users and perhaps too much concern for the ideas, the comfort and the security of the people engaged in it professionally.
The starkest way of putting it is to ask whether it is not a great irony that our education system should have two interests, the local or national Government on the one hand, and the trade unions on the other, either one of which can make tremendous changes in the education system, bringing it shuddering to a halt, with no ability in the hands of the parents to keep the education system moving in the direction in which they wish to see it go. I conclude from all that that we need to give parents more choice. As I shall explain, the very fact of providing parents with more choice is likely to lead to substantial improvements in the education system.
We have certainly taken some important steps forward. The Education Act 1980, which introduced the concept of choice, is an important landmark. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) and his colleagues of the day for that substantial advance.
Most of us on these Tory Benches might agree that we need to go further in making more effective the choice that parents are able to make. In many areas there may be only one school that a large number of parents would wish to put down as their first choice. That school may rapidly fill up with first choices, and then what happens? There is nowhere in the area parents can send their children except to the schools which, for presumably good reasons, they did not wish to put top of their list of choices.
The longer-term aim should be to direct the resources towards those schools that are able to attract children through the choices made by their parents. That will mean establishing some sort of relationship between the number of children in the school and the resources given to it by the local authority. I am prepared to admit that putting that into practice in many ways may be a messy process. It will

involve having crash building programmes in the good schools so that they can go on accommodating the number of children wishing to go there. In addition, teachers will have to be more mobile. They will have to be prepared to go from school to school as the choices build up in favour of the better schools, and as parents withdraw.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that there might be some problem as to how large a school can get? He may feel that the resources are available for this crash building programme, but how large would he let a school get?

Mr. Portillo: It will be a very shocking idea probably to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like a school to get as large as the parents would like it to be. That may mean building on the site or on different sites, taking over buildings used for other purposes, taking over school buildings that are closing in the less popular schools, or amalgamations. I think what the hon. Gentleman is worried about is not the practicality but the implication of the scheme.

Dr. Keith Hampson: All of us, have surely had experience of split-site schools causing enormous problems. Furthermore, from our own constituencies, and indeed from the history of the public schools, we all know that a great deal hangs on the quality of, above all, the headmaster. If my hon. Friend is going to put all his resources into schools that are, as it were, transistorily popular, what happens when the headmaster changes or it becomes unpopular?

Mr. Portillo: I respect the breadth of experience from which my hon. Friend speaks. However, I wish to get a little further in my speech.
One of the results of all this is not just that some schools will grow infinitely and others will close. This scheme is worth pursuing because it will tend to drag up the worst quality schools towards the quality of the better schools. Therefore, the reductio ad absurdum to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has referred will not necessarily occur.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend believe that parents will want to uproot their children from a particular school simply because there has been a change of headmaster? There would have to be a fairly catastrophic change in headmaster to produce that kind of result. Most parents would not wish to move their children from school to school because they realise that this creates problems for children.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. However, I hope that he will agree with me that as more power and responsibility are given to parents one expects them to have a greater say in the selection of headmasters, which will eventually have an effect upon the quality of headmasters.
I should like schools to be able more readily to respond to the wishes of parents. I do not believe that that will be to the detriment of schoolteachers. They have almost as much to gain from this kind of approach as do parents. If teachers are better able to respond to the wishes of parents by providing the kind of education that parents wish to be provided, I believe that this will lead not to a diminution but to an increase in morale.
When I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) I made the point that I wished


parents to have a greater say on boards of governors in the selection of headmasters. I am pleased to see that the Education Bill makes provision for more parent-governors and for greater powers to be given to them. However, parent-governors will still be fairly heavily outnumbered by other governors. I think that the reason why the points that I made a few moments ago aroused such indignation on the Opposition Benches was the idea that if a school is popular it should be allowed to grow but that if it is less popular it should be allowed to contract is anathema to certain Labour authorities. Experience in the Inner London education authority is the exact opposite of that idea.
I shall quote again from The London Standard of 6 March. It reveals that a leaked document ranks schools in the ILEA area according to their popularity—according to whether parents have placed them as their first, second or third choice. The press report reveals that the leaked ILEA document shows that intakes at some very popular and oversubscribed schools are being cut while other schools that are half empty have escaped unscathed. The pattern, therefore, is that if a school is popular it is more likely to have its intake cut but that if a school is half empty its intake is unlikely to be cut. That may account for some of the indignation of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—this is a nettle that my hon. Friend will have to grasp—that the obvious corollary of parents being allowed to choose successful schools is that the successful schools must be free to select the best candidates?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I have a feeling that he intends to develop it when he makes his speech. Some of the ideas that I have put forward this evening were canvassed in a document called "No Turning Back." I am pleased to note that some of the authors of that document are in their places this evening, and I expect that later they may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I urge the Government to give careful thought to the points that are made in that document and to consider whether or not they can move in that direction. So many of the building blocks are already in place. So many of the thoughts contained in that document appear already to be in the mind of the Government. Again I refer to the Education Bill, which contains many excellent features. I have been struck particularly by clause 23, which allows for the devolution of more financial responsibility to schools. Experiments are taking place in that direction in some places. We hear much talk of expanding the assisted places scheme to which I say amen. We also hear talk of making direct grants to technical schools and to inner city primary schools. I urge the Government to pull together all these strands and to go further with all of them.
My message to my hon. Friend the Minister—he may hear the same message from some of my hon. Friends—is: trust parents; give them responsibility and they will prove to be responsible. I would rather rely on the collective wisdom of parents than on the accumulated experience of civil servants, educationists and, dare I say, Ministers. Therefore, I repeat my message to my hon. Friend that he should trust the parents.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the fact that I have been called in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his choice of subject. When we discuss a wide range of subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I am always amused, because the Bill consists of only one page. No doubt people listening to the debate might wonder why we sit all through the night discussing such a small Bill, but the amounts involved are £155,484,000 in clause 1 and £1,032,019,000 in clause 2. As those sums affect many areas in Wales I am privileged to put on record what is happening in education in Mid Glamorgan and in parental choice in Wales.
In Wales, as distinct from England, there is a further problem because some parents who are Welsh speakers prefer their children to attend Welsh schools. The education committee of Mid Glamorgan is one of three that were formed after the reorganisation of local authority boundaries in 1973. The former Glamorgan county education authority was renowned as one of the most progressive in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since the election of the Conservative Government in 1979, tremendous restrictions have been placed on local authorities, particularly in regard to education. In Wales, as in most of the country, there has been a gradual reduction in standards and in facilities provided in schools, such as books and desks. In my constituency some schools have still got outside toilets. On 4 March I asked the Minister, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), about the number of schools with outside toilets. We were surprised to receive this reply:
The report A Study of School Building published jointly by the Department and the Welsh Office in 1977 found that there were at that time some 7,000 primary and some 600 secondary schools with outside toilets. Of these, about 6,000 primary and about 600 secondary schools had their oldest accommodation built prior to 1946. The Department is currently carrying out a sample survey of the improvement needs of the existing stock of school buildings. This will include information on improvements to toilet accommodation where this is below regulation standards."—[Official Report, 4 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 105.]
It is time that money was spent on improving standards in schools, especially in Mid Glamorgan which has suffered under the Government's funding priorities.
I should like to put the record straight regarding an article that was published in a Bridgend local paper. The matter was raised by a friend, county councillor Jeff Jones, at a meeting of the sub-committee on 21 September. He suggested that the article on representation on school governing bodies also referred to a decline in educational standards in Mid Glamorgan schools. The report was criticised, and the chairman of the education committee, councillor Dennis Philpen, who is my constituency party chairman, was rather surprised that the matter should have been raised as the Mid Glamorgan education authority had prepared a report on the subject.
The statistics show that, in 1980, 30·3 per cent. of school leavers left without an O-level or a CSE grade, that 30·7 per cent. left in 1981, that 27·6 per cent. left in 1982, that 27 per cent. left in 1983 and that 25·4 per cent. left in 1984. Whereas 75·2 per cent. of the fifth year group was entered for examinations in 1980, 78 per cent. was entered in 1984. In 1980, 19·6 per cent. of school leavers left with five or more O-levels and 24·4 per cent. left with the same number in 1984.
Those statistics show a significant improvement in public examination performance by Mid Glamorgan pupils during that five-year period. There is no evidence of a decline such as is referred to in the Bridgend local paper. When considering such statistics, it is essential to remember that CSE examinations in Wales are held on the same days in June and July as the GCE examinations. That is often forgotten when critics point to better examination performances by pupils in English schools. In England, CSE examinations are held in April and May.
In some subjects with an examination syllabus similar to the GCE, candidates in England can and do enter for CSE and GCE examinations. It is also possible for pupils in England who leave school at Whitsun in their fifth year to enter the CSE examination. That is not so in Wales. The result is that a high proportion of the fifth year group in schools in Wales—the pre-Whitsun leavers—cannot sit either the CSE or the GCE examinations. In 1980, 30 per cent. of the fifth year group were pre-Whitsun school leavers in Mid Glamorgan. Thai proportion fell to 23·6 per cent. in 1984.
It is clearly unjust and misleading to make comparisons between Wales and England and to say that educational standards are lower in Wales on the grounds that more pupils than in England leave school without one pass in GCE or CSE. A large proportion of pupils in Wales have left school before the examinations are held.
It is also, of course, equally misleading to make such a comparison between Mid Glamorgan and other education authorities in Wales. Despite the attempts made by Mid Glamorgan head teachers and careers officers to persuade pupils to stay on at school until the end of the summer term, still in 1984 over 23 per cent. of Mid Glamorgan pupils left before Whitsun. The rate in other Welsh authorities is lower.
The Mid Glamorgan statistics, of course, reflect the social and economic difficulties faced by many Mid Glamorgan communities. I well remember a recent report to the Mid Glamorgan planning committee in which the county planning officer reported on a research survey carried out for England and Wales by the county planning officer for Durham. It demonstrated the level of social deprivation in each district council area in England and Wales and found that three of the six districts in Mid Glamorgan—Cynon Valley, Merthyr and Rhondda—had the worst deprivation in England and Wales, while the other three districts were all at what was described as "the deprived end" of average conditions. It is essential to take this into account when making any judgment on pupil examination performance in Mid Glamorgan schools.
There is now no doubt that there is a clear association between the socio-economic background of pupils in local education authority schools and their average levels of attainment in public examinations. Statistics Bulletin 13/84 published in November 1984 by the Department of Education and Science gives the results of a research analysis of statistics for the maintained schools in England. This clearly shows that at least 70 per cent. of the variation between authorities in their pupils' examination achievements was statistically associated with variations in the values of socio-economic background measures.
The socio-economic background indicators used in the survey were drawn from the 1981 census and were the same as those used in the grant-related expenditure calculations for the rate support grant. Examples are: (i)

children living in households whose head is a semi-skilled or unskilled manual worker, described subsequently as the low socio-economic group; (ii) children in one-parent families; (iii) children in families with four or more children; (iv) children living in households receiving supplementary benefit.
In addition, the following socio-economic variables were used by the DES statisticians in their analysis: (a) the population density in the authority; (b) the 16 to 18-year-old population density; (c) the rate of unemployment in the 16-18 age group; (d) the rate of unemployment in all age groups; (e) the infant mortality rate; and (f) poor housing.
These socio-economic indicators are the same ones as were used by the county of Durham in its survey of social deprivation in England and Wales. Although the Department of Education and Science Statistical Bulletin deals only with the schools and local education authorities in England, I am confident that its findings apply with even more weight to the schools and authorities in Wales, particularly Mid Glamorgan. The sub-committee was well aware, for example, of the recent reports of the Cynon Valley district council on the state of the housing in its area and of the Mid Glamorgan area health authority's concern about the high infant mortality rate in the county.
In paragraph 35 of its conclusions, the Statistical Bulletin is explicit about the dangers of making simple judgments about pupils' examination performance and notes that
All of the latest analyses have indicated that the social background, and to a much lesser extent the school-based and financial factors, provide a statistically significant explanation of the variation between local authorities in the levels of examination success of school leavers.
I have always been aware of the dangers of making unjust comparisons between schools on the basis of examination performance. The Department's Statistical Bulletin has also demonstrated the unfairness of making similar comparisons between education authorities on the basis of pupils' public examination performance. During the past year or two, local newspapers in South Wales have begun to make such comparisons, as they have been trying to make do for many years between individual schools. However, to make a fair comparison, the socio-economic background of the authority's catchment area must be taken fully into account.
I want the Welsh Office to follow the example of the Department of Education and Science in England and to publish a similar statistical analysis of the association between the socio-economic background of pupils in Welsh education authority schools and their average attainment in public examinations. If the Welsh Office does not do that, unfair judgments and invidious comparisons will continue to be made following each annual publication of school examination results. At the same time, misleading statements and unsupported generalisations will continue to be made about public examination performances in Mid Glamorgan schools.
The House will not need me to remind it that the success of many Mid Glamorgan schools should not be judged by a superficial consideration of public examination results. We must also bear in mind the many achievements of Mid Glamorgan pupils in music, art, drama, design, crafts, technology, games, athletics, many other sporting activities and, last but not least, in their involvement in the


communities in which they live and the support and help which they give unstintingly to the elderly and the disadvantaged.

Mr. Michael Brown: The burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument—although I do not accept it, I understand it—is that one should not have sole regard to public examination achievement when judging a school and that other social factors and social deprivation should be taken into account. However, will the hon. Gentleman consider why Highbury Grove comprehensive school in Islington—an area of great social deprivation—achieves considerable excellence in examination results?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Powell: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a nice breather for me. I shall not stray down the path of discussing Islington, because I am worried about the future of schools in Mid Glamorgan, and especially about this report. Social deprivation in Mid Glamorgan is as bad as it is in any other area. In Maesteg, unemployment is about 45 per cent. Similar unemployment throughout Mid Glamorgan forces many social problems upon local authorities.
The inspectors of education produced a report on a survey of curricular provision for low-attaining pupils in the Mid Glamorgan local education authority. It deals in some detail with the great difficulties that beset the local authority. The report reminds the local authority that
since the late 1970s the standard of work of pupils of modest and lower academic ability in Welsh secondary schools and the quality of their learning programmes has attracted widespread attention and interest within the education service, within schools, in local education authorities and H.M. Inspectorate as well as at Ministerial level within the Welsh Office.
Some years ago I shared this concern and interest, and felt that urgent action should be taken to deal with the problem. Her Majesty's inspectors summarised what has been done in Mid Glamorgan as follows:
The Mid Glamorgan LEA has been active since about 1980 in the field of curriculum development for less able pupils in years IV and V. Teacher working groups were established in the Autumn Term of 1981 and, some months later, produced a framework of courses. Pilot studies commenced in September 1982 in selected schools for a Certificate of Education (CoE) course of 2 years duration comprising initially 8 components of grouped or inter-related studies: communication studies, numeracy, social education, physical education, leisure studies, science at work, practical and creative studies and vocational studies. Development work was also extended to embrace moderation and assessment; much emphasis was placed on the assessment of course work, while the final examination was timed for the spring period before the first eligible fifth year pupils left school.
By the time the first cohort took their examinations in 1984, certification had been taken over by the Welsh Joint Education Committee, though the LEA continued to be responsible for the associated curriculum development; few courses have been, and are being added to the original list and the opportunity to provide courses and to have them assessed has been extended to the whole of Wales.
Additional resources of staff (one or 2 per school) and capitation allowances have provided for the introduction of the courses. The LEA has also supported working groups and panel meetings, and the certificate courses have become an important focus of in-service activity within the county. Co-ordinators have been appointed in each school and have helped to ensure ready access to materials and courses and the effective functioning of assessment and moderation procedures.

Although the initial concept was to provide a group of balanced and inter-related courses, in practice the certificate has been incorporated into the existing curriculum of most schools on a single-subject basis—though of course many pupils take a wide range of the courses, in some instances comprising nearly all their curriculum. The 1985 subject entries for the CoE numbered some 17,000 and candidates were being prepared in every school in the county.
I could go on at some length about this question of education in Mid Glamorgan and its effect in Wales, but I know that there are quite a number of Members on the Conservative Benches who wish to speak. It is a pity that this was not a three-hour debate—

Hon. Members: It is.

Mr. Powell: If it is, I will go on. Seriously, a number of other hon. Members wish to take part. Because I am the only Welsh Member present, I have taken the liberty of extending my time so as to be able to present the difficulties and problems in Wales, and in Mid Glamorgan in particular.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to put all this on the record and to correct a fault in an article, published by the Glamorgan Gazette, from one of the lesser breeds in Mid Glamorgan, the only Conservative county councillor for the Mid Glamorgan area, David Unwin. By putting this on the record I hope to exonerate the Mid Glamorgan local education authority of any guilt conveyed by misguided representations made to the press, and enable the parents of pupils in Mid Glamorgan to understand that if they have a choice in Mid Glamorgan they have it where the education authority is thinking closely and sincerely about the future education of their children.

Mr. Alan Howarth: There is a problem in our education system. There is extensive dissatisfaction with the education provision available. At primary level all too often an ideology of child-centred education has been advanced to the detriment of education in basic skills in the three Rs and discipline. That is certainly the view taken by parents. It is widely held by parents that at almost every level too many teachers tend to denigrate good standards of learning and discipline as somehow bourgeois and Victorian.
There is anxiety about standards in many comprehensive schools, and indeed there is statistical underpinning to support that anxiety. The data of the Department of Education and Science, as set out in statistical bulletin 13/84, led the Department to predict an increase of about 15 per cent. in the proportion of pupils obtaining five or more O-levels or CSEs grade 1 in local education authorities with a fully selective system of schools—that is to say, 25 per cent. of pupils in grammar schools and 75 per cent. in secondary modern schools—compared with pupils in local education authorities with a fully comprehensive system of schools when all other factors, including social class and other social factors, are held constant.
Therefore, the DES expects better examination results from local education authorities with selective schools than from those with comprehensive schools. Yet the huge majority of the nation's children are in comprehensive schools. That disturbs a great many people, I think with justification.
Parents are dissatisfied and, if statistical evidence is needed to demonstrate that, it can perhaps be drawn from


the "choice in welfare" study carried out under the auspices of the Institute of Economic Affairs in 1979. Research based on national quota samples found that the proportion of people favouring freedom for individual parents to contract out from state to private education had doubled from 27 per cent. in 1963 to 60 per cent. in 1978. Many of us deeply regret the divide that has been so long established in Britain's education system between the maintained and the private sector. It is a disturbing phenomenon to find that, increasingly, parents are looking to opt out of the mainstream provision of education. That must give us all cause for concern.
A letter published in The Times on 25 February expressed, in a representative way, the anxiety of industrialists and those concerned with the development of technical skills under our education system at present standards. Six professors of engineering signed a letter which said:
we are concerned at the near-collapse in our schools' teaching of the syntax of English. The power of our language, for fine distinctions and complex arguments, results only from the systematic teaching of precision, and engineers and scientists are often dismayed to find that the present-day school-leaver cannot adequately wield that power.
Why should there be that problem? I suspect that it arises in part because the public sector provision of education is virtually a monopoly and has increasingly taken on the characteristics of all monopoly producers. It becomes, to an unfortunate degree, self-serving and perhaps insufficiently regarding of the real concerns of customers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) rightly congratulated the then Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues on the introduction of that worthwhile piece of legislation, the Education Act 1980. It marked a useful start along a road upon which I hope we shall travel further towards the creation of opportunities for choice by parents. That useful start has been followed up recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for reforms of the school curriculum and examination system.
For the first time—it seems extraordinary that it was the first time—the Education Act 1980 gave parents the right to express a preference for the schools which their children might attend. However, the Act contains one important qualification which, as subsequent experience has shown, tended to undermine its excellent intention. It heavily qualified the right of parents to exercise a preference by making it subject to the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. As a result of that qualification, it has been all too easy for local education authorities to override the preferences of parents. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 4 February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said:
there were about 9,000 parental appeals against school admission decisions in 1985, of which some 4,000 were decided in the parents' favour".—[Official Report, 4 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 113.]
The real amount of choice that it is possible for parents to exercise has remained very limited.
At the same time, it is doubtful that we are getting the value for money that we ought to be getting from the considerable expenditure that is going into education. Many people are anxious that we cannot spend enough money and are not putting enough resources into education. Of course it would always be desirable to put

more resources into education, but we have to ask some searching questions as to whether we are obtaining the best value for money out of the resources that are being put into education.
It is an unsatisfactory feature of the education system that more non-teaching staff are employed in it than teaching staff. The pattern of funding and of accountability in schools is little short of chaotic. My hon. Friend the Minister may agree with that. The Department of Education and Science is not truly in control of overall funding. Funding is almost a by-product of an annual negotiation between the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, with the Manpower Services Commission as an important tangential factor. The Department of Education and Science is held politically responsible for the quality of educational provision while not controlling overall funding and not employing teachers and while the organisation of schools locally and the detailed allocation of resources under the Education Act 1944 is a matter for the local education authority. Therefore, the Department which is held responsible has frustratingly limited powers in practice. My hon. Friend the Minister may agree with that to some extent.
Some strange things have happened over the past 20 years. I know that the grammar schools were highly regarded. They were perhaps the finest repository of centuries of educational tradition, experience and excellence. However, they were swept away in the late 1960s and in the 1970s in the name of an educational theory. I know how popular grammar schools are because in my own constituency a great rearguard action was fought in the wake of the 1976 legislation of the previous Labour Government which would have abolished the grammar schools.
In Warwickshire the grammar schools survived. Unhappily, Warwickshire changed political control in the county council elections last year. The ruling Labour and Liberal coalition has set out finally to extinguish those great schools. There are three grammar schools in my constituency. There is the King Edward school in Stratford, which is the school Shakespeare attended. That might be a reason for assuming that the school is worth preserving. Certainly, its enormous continuing popularity and academic excellence would justify its preservation.
There is Shottery school for girls and Alcester grammar school in my constituency and there is tremendous local attachment to those schools. I do not think that when some misguided electors voted Liberal a year ago they realised that they were voting for the abolition of those first-rate schools to which they are so attached.

Mr. Leigh: Is my hon. Friend aware that, of the 150 grammar schools remaining, three are in my constituency? Last week, we managed to save Queen Elizabeth high school in Gainsborough, but only thanks to the good electors of Lincolnshire, who kept a Conservative county council in control last May. Does that not underline how vital it is that people should turn out to vote Conservative in county council elections so that they retain the best elements of the selective system?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has spoken some wise words. I appreciate what he has said. There are only 150 grammar schools left, and we should cherish them. No doubt they are not all perfect, but we must take enormous care to ensure that parents' preferences are heeded and that


ideologically motivated local authorities do not succeed in simply sweeping grammar schools away because they disapprove of them on theoretical grounds.
The technical schools were late to flourish under the Butler dispensation. There is an excellent example in Bath in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but technical schools have almost entirely disappeared as well.
It is interesting to contrast what has been happening in other countries during the period in which we have lost our technical schools. In Germany, parents have the right to choose whether their children should go to a grammar school, a technical school, a secondary modern, or its equivalent. Parents have increasingly opted to take advantage of technical schools. Some 50 per cent. of German school leavers are leaving technical schools and are, on average, two years ahead of our school leavers in mathematical attainment. There is a similar differential in Japan, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate referred.
I said that there is a problem. Our sense of crisis has been precipitated by the teachers' dispute, which has been running for a year in England and Wales and for longer in Scotland. It has been marked by deeply damaging disruption to schools, by irreparable harm to children in their preparation for public examinations and, more profoundly, by loss of respect of students for many teachers. Our schools exist in an atmosphere in which parents are angry and members of the teaching profession are ashamed. It is dispiriting—indeed, so dispiriting that we cannot accept it as a prospect for the future—that the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers are holding out the prospect of further disruption. Under the present administrative and negotiating arrangements that is only too real a prospect.
I suspect that the reason the system does not seem to be working is that it has been captured by the producers. Education is controlled by educationists—educational academics, and bureaucrats and the activists in education trade unions. I do not disparage the excellence in our education system, but in a producer-dominated system—as in the nationalised industries and in monopolies of all sorts—dedication to the customer tends not to be the paramount quality. The right direction for reform must be to enable families to recapture control of education. I believe that we can reliably look to parents to apply continuing pressure for good standards of learning and discipline in schools. If schools are made accountable to families, once again schools will become in a much more worthwhile sense expressions of local community.
I should like parents to be empowered to exercise choice as purchasers of education in a market place. There are four principal options by which parents might be enfranchised and given the power to choose a system of education. The assisted places scheme was the Government's chosen initiative. That scheme is popular with the independent sector and is no doubt popular with families who have benefited under it. Its weakness is that it puts the emphasis on escape or exit from the system which contains 95 per cent. of the nation's children. It does nothing to overcome the unhappy split between the independent and the maintained sectors. It tends to cream off talented children and therefore weakens the maintained

schools. It has not taken off on a large scale and I believe that it does not provide a suitable model for further expansion.
The second option is education credits.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I completely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the assisted places scheme and its basic deficiency. Does he not agree that one of the problems with that scheme is that, because it applies only at secondary level, it means that children who have not been to pre-prep schools and so on are at a disadvantage in meeting the entrance requirements?

Mr. Howarth: That is a further weakness of the scheme; I agree with my hon. Friend.
I was talking about the possibility of educational tax credits. It might be argued that it would be an act of simple justice to give credits to those who have paid taxes but who are not benefiting under the maintained provision of education. I am unenthusiastic about that route. It would do nothing to help poor families in the absence of an integrated tax credit system. There would be no benefit under such a system for families who do not pay tax. It would not help provide the resources needed to fund new private schools. I am not enthusiastic about seeing any enlargement of the private sector in contradiction to a maintained sector.
The third option is the educational voucher scheme. That scheme has enormous merit in that it empowers every parent, equally, on behalf of every child, to choose the education for that child in an educational market place. The difficulty with the voucher scheme is that the administrative procedures of issuing vouchers and coping with the paperwork would be clumsy, expensive and awkward.
The fourth possible means of making schools accountable to parents, and the one that I find most attractive, is a system of per capita funding. Under a direct grant scheme, direct grants either from the Department of Education and Science or from the local education authority receiving funds originally from the Department, could flow directly to schools on a capitation basis. That is to say, for each child that the school was able to attract and retain, a certain amount of money would be made available. The merit of that system would be that it would make schools accountable to parents.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the hon. Member aware that most schools get their allowance of resources based on the number of pupils and that the number of teachers is allocated on the basis of the number of pupils in the school? That is the system that applies at present.

Mr. Howarth: There is an important distinction because, under the present system, children are allocated to schools by local education authorities. Under the system that I propose, parents would make their choice of school for the child and the child would attract, as of right, a per capita grant. That is a qualitatively different system. I am not proposing a total upheaval in all respects, but I think that there is an important difference in that my system makes the parent as purchaser sovereign and the state equips each parent to start equal on the starting line.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I would like to clarify what my hon. Friend is saying as it would be interesting to get his point absolutely straight. My hon. Friend seems to be


arguing for a voucher scheme for the maintained sector. That seems to be the distinction between what has previously been discussed when vouchers have been on the table and what my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends are talking about now. Is that right?

Mr. Howarth: I am talking not strictly about a voucher scheme but about a scheme whereby every child at a school would be entitled to a certain grant from the state. The availability of the grant could be restricted to children in maintained schools, or extended to all children, regardless of whether they attend maintained or private schools. Either system is possible. At this stage, I am not arguing in favour of one or the other.
I find it attractive that the grant should go to each child, regardless of whether the child attends a maintained or private school because it would blur, and in the end extinguish, the demarcation between private and maintained schools in our system which has been damaging socially and culturally.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am pursuing information rather than trouble. Will my hon. Friend make it clear what the difference is between that proposal and the voucher scheme? I am still a little uncertain about it.

Mr. Howarth: The voucher scheme requires a large administrative apparatus to send parents the voucher, cheque or piece of paper which they present and cash in at the chosen school. The system that I propose is more convenient administratively. The school is entitled to collect the funds according to the number of children attending the school. The distinction is purely administrative. The system that I propose would be cheaper to run and would provide less scope for parents to become muddled by the administration, and to that extent it is preferable. But I do not wish to be dogmatic about the virtues of the per capita system as opposed to the voucher scheme. The important point that they have in common is that they both make schools directly accountable to parents.
I should like to see self-governed schools, owned and ultimately controlled by their governors, who would be trustees. I welcome the Education Bill, but it goes only some way down the road of developing the responsibility of governors. We could usefully go further with governors appointing the head teacher, who would be responsible for education policy, including staff appointments, and a bursar, who would be responsible for the administration and finance of the schools. I should like salaries and pay to be the responsibility of the school, and schools empowered to pay what they believe is appropriate in the local circumstances to attract the staff they need. That would build up the responsibility and sense of self-confidence of schools, and help us to overcome our present acute difficulty of finding teachers in shortage subjects.
Under that system standards would improve because children and resources would gravitate to the better schools, and there would be continuing pressure on all schools to satisfy. In the end, parents would have the sanction of removing their child to another school, if they were unhappy about the school. The organisation of schools would be determined gradually through the operation of supply and demand in an educational market place. As a result, some issues which at present are vexatious would be taken from the realm of political decision-making.
I am thinking, for example, of the question whether village and small schools should survive. That would be resolved by parents deciding whether the advantages to the local community of keeping a small school outweigh the educational disadvantages that it is fashionable to argue are inherent in small schools. The question whether large 2,000-plus comprehensives have a role to play would be determined by parents making their judgment in the light of experience. The question whether there should be magnet or specialist schools would be determined similarly. If the German experience is anything to go by, large numbers of parents would opt for technical schools with strong technical curricula, together with a good grounding in the English language and one foreign language. That is more or less the pattern of the German realschule.
It is offensive that under the present dispensation the permission of a local education authority must be sought before a new denominational school can be established. To judge by the over-subscription of existing denominational schools, many parents would opt for such a school, if they were empowered to make the choice and given the means to put it into effect. They would also opt for other types of new schools.
It would be naive to suggest that there would be no problems in the scheme which I have sketched. Under any system there would still be poor areas and areas of social instability. In any system some children will find themselves in the least popular schools. However, I believe that even those schools will be better because when head teachers are in control of the schools they will be more motivated to run the schools in a manner that pleases the parents. The schools will be accountable to the parents. Indeed, it will be normal for parents to take an active interest, to bring pressure to bear and to exercise responsibility to a far greater extent with regard to their children's education.
I believe there will be a tendency for standards to rise. With the streamlining of administrative costs, more money will be available for schools. On that basis no one should be worse off and many people will be better off. It would be a mark of a mature society that parents should make decisions about the education of their children rather than politicians and bureaucrats. Parental sovereignty in education is a worthy theme to accompany the themes which the Government have already introduced—wider home ownership, wider share ownership and trade union democracy. To give parents power over the education of their children would be profoundly popular and beneficial.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: First, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on having the foresight to put in for this debate this evening. It is extremely important for the future of the country. I should like to follow along the lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and elaborate some of the cogent points that he put forward.
This evening it is a pity that we do not enjoy the company of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). If that hon. Gentleman were here, I am sure that he would immediately rise to the bait and call me one of those hooligan minor public schoolboys on the Tory benches. However, he would be quite wrong, because, unfortunately for him, I have not had the advantages


enjoyed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), or the hon. Member for Durham, North, (Mr. Radice) Consequently, I do not have a guilt complex about introducing greater choice into the educational system.
By the skin of my teeth, I missed becoming a school contemporary of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). How the course of history might have been altered by exposure to that towering intellect in some of the formative years of my development. This is personal reminiscence. However, I am part of the 95 per cent. of the population who did not have the advantage, or perhaps whose parents did not have the advantage, of being able to select the school to which their children were sent. I know that that 95 per cent. is not enough, however, for Mrs. Shirley Williams and the Social Democrats. She believes not in a 95 per cent. no choice system but in a 100 per cent. no choice system. Mrs. Williams once said—I am not sure whether she has recanted:
Independence in education is bought at too high a price for the rest of society.
I do not know whether the electors of the city of Cambridge will agree. However, I suspect that we shall have the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) for many years yet.

Mr. Chris Patten: He will cheer us up.

Mr. Hamilton: I agree he will cheer us up and, as Dr. Johnson put it in connection with someone else, he:
adds to the gaiety of nations.
It is true that parents in Britain are dissatisfied with the educational system. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out that the Institute of Economic Affairs survey on the desire for choice in education showed that more than half of the British people believe that it would be a good thing if we were to move to a more market-orientated policy in education.
Some 81 per cent. of people in that survey declared themselves in favour of the right to send their children to fee paying schools. Therefore, 81 per cent. of the people of this country reject the Labour party policy of extinguishing altogether any possibility of choice in our secondary education system.
Although the Education Act 1980, introduced and put through the House by my most distinguished constituent, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) has made a great improvement in the opportunities for choice for a great many people, we need to go further than the Act enables us to do. The state's dictation and restriction in education are unacceptable. We would not accept such dictation and restriction in far more trivial parts of our daily lives, so I find it astonishing that, for more than 100 years, we have been prepared to put up with them in what is one of the most important elements in any individual's life and one of the most important aspects of his personal and psychological development.
Alas, in recent years schools have become tools of social engineering. The Education Act 1976, which was the brain child of Mrs. Shirley Williams, had as its main aim to impose equality on the country, but in that it failed. It did a tremendous amount of damage while its provisions were still in force. There are problems in my constituency, even in some of the most affluent parts. For example, in

Wilmslow, the school is on three sites which are for apart, which results in tremendous upheaval during the day, with people having to shuttle between sites. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the converging of three disparate schools into one school in name but three schools in reality, has benefited anybody. The parents, still less the children, had no choice in deciding to make that change in the education and school system.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Southgate and for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out, the education system has been hijacked by those who run it. When constituents complain to me, for example about crumbling buildings, buildings that are not redecorated or a lack of books, all that I can say is, "If you had real choice in education, would you allow this situation to obtain? Would you allow your priorities to be those of the education system?" Most parents do not want this. However, because they have no direct input into the system and because the local education authority is not run directly in the interests of the consumer, unfortunately the priorities are those of people not directly involved in the system as consumers.

Dr. Hampson: Like my hon. Friend I was a grammar school boy rather than a public school boy, but I cannot help thinking of all the great public school traditions, which were not on behalf of the consumers. Had one asked Dr. Arnold whether he was doing what parents wanted him to do, one would have got short shrift.

Mr. Hamilton: Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not living a century ago—two centuries ago, perhaps. It is true that not all parents would be quite so concerned about the lack of a lick of paint on the walls, but if they are concerned, and if they have a choice, they can send their children to schools where the priorities are different. In the state-maintained sector they do not have that choice. There is no real assessment of teacher performance as yet in the state sector either, and that is disturbing. I am sure that it is also unacceptable to the vast majority of parents.
One wonders about the priorities of the bureaucrats who run the LEAs—for example, those who run the system in my authority of Cheshire. Recently, the director of education, a distinguished man, took early retirement and got a very nice little package. He received a lump sum of £36,000 and an indexed-linked pension of £14,000 a year for life. On that early retirement he did not, in fact, retire. He then became professor of education at Warwick university at whatever salary he derives from that.
I find it a strange set of priorities that allows somebody to take such a package which is beneficial to him but which dissipates the resources—the scarce resources, as Opposition Members would say—available for education. Of course, he was allowed to do that only on the grounds that his departure would conduce to the improvement of the education system, but I fail to detect as yet any institutional or structural improvements in the system, and it is to that I was referring, without intending to be derogatory to his abilities in any way.
The politicisation of many schools in the country results from the lack of effective parental imput into the system. The howls of horror which have been heard from those who derive the incomes from the system at the introduction of attempts to quantify the achievements of schools and to compare the different standards of different schools had to be heard to be believed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in this country there has been a system of inspection of schools for a very long time? Those reports have been studied carefully by schools, and the whole system of appraisal has been going on for a long time. The majority of governing bodies have taken very seriously the reports of the inspectorate. There has been a system of appraisal in the country for a very long time.

Mr. Hamilton: I accept, of course, that there has been a system of appraisal. I do not think that anybody looking at it fairly could say that it is perfect and would not be improved if there was yet another means of putting pressure on schools to raise standards even beyond the minimum which inspectors have to assess.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Would it not, for example be in the interests of the parents of the 21·3 per cent. of ILEA school leavers a year ago who failed to get even one CSE or O-level to have a system whereby at least they had some input rather than having inspectors who appear to have been able to do nothing about it?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the way in which the CSE examination was designed, the intention was that, to get a grade 5 CSE, one had to be in the top 80 per cent?

Mr. Hamilton: That is true, but I wonder how many employers pay much attention to CSEs and regard them as pieces of paper worth having.
What matters is not what we put into the system and how much it costs to run, but what we get out of it at the end of the day. We seem to have reversed the emphasis. We are constantly talking about inputs and how much we are building up the school systems; we are not talking enough about the effectiveness of the resources we provide.
As a Government we have two achievements in that respect. It is now possible to compare the examination performances of schools and, under the 1980 Act, there is an increased but still imperfect choice for parents as to which schools to send their children. I stand today like Lord Clive in the 18th century when he was interrogated by a Committee of the House—aghast at our own moderation after so many years of experience when we have had great opportunities to make radical changes in the education system, but have drawn back from the brink of doing so. Real choice will come about only when we introduce more market oriented systems of choice. When one says "market system", that is perhaps an abstraction that does not attract some people. The market system means people, consumers, individuals, making their own choices rather than others making choices for them, so it is a more humane system than the present one.
This will have great political benefits for the Government who take the step of introducing it. There are many political difficulties by which all Governments are beset. There is, for example, the question of closure of village schools and the size of schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out, there is the question of religious schools and of teachers' pay. If we had a more market-oriented education system, those problems would not disappear completely, but they would be much less pressing and they would certainly be much less political than they are at the moment. We should be

able to be more flexible over scales of pay for teachers. That would remedy the shortages in certain subjects and in certain difficult areas.
Many of the local government problems that are connected with the reform of the rating system would disappear if education were centrally funded, albeit directed locally. There is still much to do in order to reform the education system. There is choice of a restricted kind, but that choice is available only to those who have the resources to move to an area where there is a decent school. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to say that he sent his children to a state school, but that was Holland Park comprehensive school. There is a great difference between a school of that kind and some of the schools that one finds in some of the most deprived inner-city areas.
As a grammar school product—I hope that its product will incline hon. Members to approve of the system—I very much regret that the advantages that I enjoyed, coming from a modest background, are now denied to many people who come from the same kind of background. They are imprisoned in a system that will blight their lives. I fail entirely to understand the arguments of those on the Opposition Benches—[SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "They are not there."] They would deny it if they were. They would deny parental choice. The implication is that the working classes are not fit to make decisions about the educational needs of their children—which, for socialists, we ought to find extraordinary. But this is not a new phenomenon. If one looks back to the days before the introduction of the state education system, which is going back a very long way, we find that even when incomes were very much smaller than they are now poor people put aside significant proportions of their income to provide for the education of their children.
In his book "Education and the State", Professor E. G. West points out that in 1833, the year in which the first state education grants were introduced, the percentage of the net national income being spent on day schooling was about 1 per cent. of parental income. By 1965 it had risen to 2 per cent. In 1833 the average was about 0·8 per cent. for children below 11 years of age. In 1965 it was about 0·86 per cent. In relative terms, therefore, the sacrifices being made by parents today are not much greater than the sacrifices that were made by parents all those years ago.
In those days most children received day schooling and the average length of schooling was between four and five years. In Manchester, which is on my doorstep, apparently 80 per cent. of schooling in the 1830s was paid for entirely by parental fees. This shows that parents who then lived in indescribable poverty compared with the kind of poverty that may be experienced today, were prepared to make that kind of sacrifice. Today parents are very much more able to provide properly for the education of their children. In fact, the Forster Act of 1870 provided for a rudimentary form of vouchers. They were called tickets. That can be found in section 25 of the Act. These ideas, therefore, are not new.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is it not an extraordinary paradox that in many households where there are two wage earners and where the average take-home income is higher than it has ever been the demand


for private education is so low? Does not this give us pause for thought when we consider how much discretion parents ought to have?

Mr. Hamilton: That was not characteristic of my hon. Friend's own family because he was a school chum of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central at Eton.
It is only because the state takes such a high proportion of their income in taxes that people feel unable to pay twice for the education of their children. If the tax burden were reduced by transferring responsibility for education from the state to individuals, they could pay much more easily for the education of their children.

Mr. Leigh: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) saying that the working classes cannot be trusted to look after the education of their children?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall allow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) to make his own speech in due course. I shall certainly not attempt to read his mind.
The vast majority of people, if they had a higher net disposable income because the tax burden was lower, with spending on education being lower, would much prefer to educate their children themselves. That is the basis of our approach in the publication "No Turning Back", which is familiar to many hon. Members. We made three suggestions about how the education system could be improved. The principal way would be to introduce per capita funding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has pointed out. School boards should be made more powerful through a major parental input and headmasters should be given executive powers. That could be reinforced by an absolute right to send one's child to any school where a place was available. In addition, a group of 30 or more parents should have the right to set up a school which would receive the funds which the State would otherwise have expended on the education of their children.
Under that system, choice would exist naturally. That could happen if the disposable income of parents was not reduced by the burdens of the state. It is a myth that the redistribution of income plays other than a small part in raising the living standards of those on lower than average incomes. Most people in receipt of benefits pay for the benefits which they receive. As we heard at Treasury Question Time today. If the whole incomes of those earning £30,000 a year and more were to be expropriated by the state, that would raise less than £2 billion. Therefore, the redistributive element in the educational, social security and welfare system is very small. If the State did not own the assets and pay for the provision of services, people could do that themselves.
I ask my hon. Friend to be more radical than his predecessors have been and to trust the collective wisdom of parents rather than to perpetuate the collectivist follies of politicians.

Mr. Christopher Chope: May I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on introducing the debate. Like others of my hon. Friends, I comment on the

lack of interest shown by members of the SDP and the Liberal party in a very important subject. I also note that there are still only two Labour Members present.
The backcloth to the debate is the teachers' dispute, which has shown the extent to which parents have been left out of the control of the education of their children by the present system. Many parents were very disturbed at the selfish and unprofessional behaviour of teachers and the way in which parents' evenings were brought to an end and lunchtime supervision was disrupted. In some cases in my constituency parents were forced to give up work to look after their children at lunchtime. That shows the extent to which the behaviour of teachers was becoming irresponsible.
It was fortunate for some people in my constituency that there was a private sector alternative available. During the dispute an increasing number of parents took their children away from the maintained sector and put them into private schools until those schools were filled to overflowing. At least, there was that extent of choice but realistically that was available only to those who could afford to pay the fees.
Parents have been virtually powerless to influence events in the last year. I want to bring parents in from the cold, and there are two ways to do that. The first is to give them a clear choice of schools and the second is to give them greater responsibility for what goes on in those schools.
It is assumed now that we do not have to decide which children go to popular schools. In reality, there are popular and unpopular schools and choices must be made. The arbitrary and unfair system operates in almost every local education authority now in what are called catchment areas. Under this system, an outsider can buy in to an area and can send his child to a popular school, while somebody who may have been living in the community for many years and who wants to send his child to a certain school is squeezed out; he may be a council tenant and cannot get a transfer into the catchment area of that school. So let us not kid ourselves into thinking that there is not now a system of selection to decide which children go to popular schools.
There is a better system, one that would involve waiting lists and operate on a first-come, first-served basis. It would mean that a long-standing resident in a community would have an advantage over an incomer. There would be a running record of likely future demand for a given school. If people put down the names of their children at birth for entry to popular primary schools in the locality, the local education authority would have five years' notice of the likely demand. The design capacity of schools could be examined to see whether they could meet the demand.
I was surprised to learn from a recent written answer that no central statistics are kept of the design capacity of maintained schools. If Ministers are to take wise decisions about which schools should be closed because of a fall in demand, basic information should be in the possession of the Department of Education and Science about the design capacity of schools. Until we have such basic information, we shall not know the extent to which schools could expand.
If parents had their way, there would be more discipline in schools, with more emphasis on a core curriculum. Indeed, if parents had their way there would not be peace studies and political education. There would be much less sewing for boys and metal work for girls. The popular


schools would have remained open, bad teachers would have been sacked rather than transferred and prize days would still exist, rather then having been abolished by most Socialist local education authorities.
I recall what happened in ILEA when I was the vice-chairman of a governing body. At what was supposed to be a prize day ceremony, I said I thought it a pity that there were no prizes to present. Because of that, the Socialists decided that it was not right that I should even be the vice-chairman of that governing body.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is it not typical of ILEA to spend £8,000 per child on a creche for the children of its employees, when that is more than it spends per pupil in its schools?

Mr. Chope: I agree. That is another example of the absurdities of the ILEA. My hon. Friend and I were able to get some information about that earlier this week when we visited a sports hall in Wandsworth. We were told that ILEA prefers to bus children from local schools to its own facilities rather than deign to allow them to use a facility provided by Wandsworth council. Two local ILEA schools have used their meagre resources to make the sports hall facility available for their pupils, but that has been in spite of ILEA.
If parents had had their way, I am sure that teachers in short supply, such as maths and physics teachers, would be offered more money and that we would not have lost many fine schools. It is difficult to work out how parents can be given greater responsibility for what goes on in schools unless they are given responsibility for what are colloquially known as resources, but what I prefer to call money. If parents were given responsibility for money and its allocation in schools, I am sure that it would be much better allocated. I am also sure that, if parents felt that, by becoming members of a school governing body, they would be something more than tokens of parental involvement and able to take decisions that counted, many more would come forward. We will not get major parental involvement until we give parents responsibilities, and governing bodies control over resources.
More maintained schools might operate like those in the private sector, which have bursars. It is amazing that, in the private sector, a school with 1,000 or 500 pupils is capable of being virtully self-sufficient and can employ local jobbing people to do maintainance whereas a school of similar size in the public sector probably takes a month to get the various forms filled in. In Southampton, those forms are sent to the area office, which sometimes has to refer matters to county hall in Winchester. That system is absurd.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important speech. I suspect that he agrees that parents have no say over the curriculum in an independent school but have an indirect say in that they are the customers. How does he envisage parents controlling the curriculum in the maintained sector—by indirect means or by more direct means? Is he trying to bring maintained schools into line with independent schools or the reverse? I would like to know where he is going.

Mr. Chope: That is an interesting intervention. I would like governors to take responsibility for the curriculum. There is obviously a state involvement in that

the Department of Education and Science has an interest in ensuring that there is a core curriculum in all schools, and I would not want to remove that. If, however, governing bodies had responsibility for deciding the curriculum, they would probably take wise decisions, especially if they comprised fewer teachers and contained more parents and people interested in the school. One of the great assets of many schools in the private sector is their alumni. We do not have such involvement in the public sector as there is no scope for them to be drawn on to governing bodies. Perhaps that idea could be added to the Government's proposals for giving governing bodies greater breadth.
As has been shown, working class pupils are being excluded from entry to universities because of the system. It is a disgrace that only 19 per cent. of university entrants in 1981 came from working class backgrounds. That is reflected in what the vice-chancellor of Southampton university said at the launch of Industry Year. He said that, when he was at Durham university, engineering courses were almost entirely filled by people who had been to public schools. There is a mass of evidence to suggest that where parents are involved in their children's education those children perform better. I can think of no better reason than that for increasing parental involvement in our schools.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I notice the ingenuity of the Opposition Front Bench in spreading their talents to the Back Benches. I am sure that the House will enjoy the contributions from this side of the House.
I speak in the debate with a sense of déjà vu, of turning back. A decade or more ago I took part in these debates. My remarks tonight are not directed against the sentiments, criticisms of analyses of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have the same arguments and they are absolutely right. Standards in British schools are not what parents would like, nor what universities and polytechnics expect. They are not producing people with the talent that is necessary for the professions and industries of this country to compete in the world. I believe that that is common ground. It is a feature of the past 10 years. It is a tragedy that we have not progressed effectively over that period. The sands are moving, but not so dramatically as we wish.
We would like to see more changes in the curriculum in schools, because it has gone on the rocks. Too many subjects, including peace studies, have been shoved in at the cost of basic disciplines—the core subjects which the Secretary of State does not have the power to impose on the system. The balance has also been wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the German tradition of polytecknik technical schools. That has not been the tradition in this country. There is a certain inconsistency in what is said about the desire for market forces in schools, while at the same time lauding the independent sector. The key reason why we do not have a German tecknik philosophy or its equivalent polytechniques in France in our schools is the public school tradition. It was dominant, and fed through to our grammar schools. It was all about the educated and civilised man, and was not concerned with the practical application of skills The philosophy has filtered through the school system and into higher education as well.
Time and again in the past 150 years people have tried to break that tradition, as in the middle of the 19th century, when Manchester university and other institutions were deliberately created to oppose the classical tradition of Oxbridge. Other great civic universities followed in the latter part of the century, supported by the local customers if one likes—the industrialists, the Frys, the Boots family, the tobacco people in Nottingham and the Wills family in Bristol. The Prince Consort, Prince Albert, constantly criticised and attacked the traditions of British education and compared them with those of Germany. The reports of the education commissioners at the turn of the century refer time and again to this, and it has continued to the present age.
Since the war there have been several attempts to break the tradition. We started with the technical colleges and a tremendous impetus by David Eccles, now Lord Eccles. There was a major breakthrough in British education to counter what prevailed at the time. There was a phase during which colleges of advanced technology were established to compete with the rest of Europe in high technology. Those institutions were merged into the university tradition. In the 1960s Tony Crosland attempted to re-establish the polytechnic tradition.
Now here we are again, with all the same arguments being put forward, starting with those of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the then Prime Minister, and moving on to the new impetus by the Conservative party, when the Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, published a White Paper in 1970 to continue the debate. Therefore, it is not enough to say that there is something sacrosanct about the private sector, and I hope that my hon. Friends are not saying that. Unfortunately, that is the impression given by some of their arguments, and it is the preception among the public. We do ourselves no service if that is what the public believe to be the arguments of Conservative Members.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the public school ethos, as opposed to its attainments, has survived to influence adversely the way in which we do things in industrial Britain because no alternative source has produced people of high educational attainment. We have set out to destroy the grammar schools and technical schools by which people from working-class backgrounds and with a different ethos could have challenged the public school values in industry.

Dr. Hampson: There is some sense in that. Several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), talked about the system being controlled by the producers. But that is exactly what the public school tradition was about. It set the standards of the system. That is why Britain is unique in almost the entire Western world in the authority that we invest in teachers and, above all, in headmasters. Britain gave more power to the professionals—the teachers—than did any other country, and that is a tradition to which the National Union of Teachers, in its present warped fashion and with its Left-wing leadership, still pays lip service. The tradition that the professionals know best goes back a long way.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away with the suggestion that producer power in the

public schools resulted in their turning out people who were suited to running an empire. Surely that happened because the consumers—the parents—wanted their children to leave school with those qualities, and the schools responded to that demand—

Dr. Hampson: No.

Mr. Forsyth: In no way can my hon. Friend argue that the producers—the teachers—insisted on turning out such products.

Dr. Hampson: I am sorry to have to correct my hon. Friend, but that is exactly what happened. The large growth in British public schools occurred in 1851 after the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, which brought Civil Service examinations into British Government. To get through those examinations, they needed schools to prepare people for the syllabuses. That is why so many public schools were created. Schools such as Cheltenham and Clifton burst on the scene to produce those people. It was not in response to the customers—the parents of the children attending the schools—but another example of the professionals calling the shots.
Another problem with the argument is that we become confused between choice of course and choice of school. There are completely different solutions, and it is easier to obtain one than it is to obtain the other. If we mean a choice of course, we must consider the composition and powers of governing boards. We went through all this in the mid-1970s. I could claim that I coined the phrase "parent power"; indeed, although my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is now attributed with coining the phrase "magnet schools", I claim copyright on that, too, because I heard it first during a visit to Boston in the early 1970s.
Our arguments then were strong, but the Education Act 1981 did not go far enough. We did not accept the logic of what we called in opposition the parents' charter. We said that it was nonsense for governing bodies to be dominated by local authorities. That is the crux of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth mentioned this—

Mr. Chope: No; Southampton, Itchen!

Dr. Hampson: I apologise for that understandable mistake. We know where my hon. Friend's fame lay. The point was that local authorities, especially Socialist ones, packed the governing bodies of schools so that parents could have no effect on courses or curricula. Indeed, all the perversities in the present system, such as peace studies, were pushed into the schools by the lackeys of local councils, who were put on to governing bodies as political nominees, not because they had any real interest in the schools. We said that that must be removed. We said that parents ought to be the largest force, because it was their children who were involved. That was fundamental. But we let the parents down. We have taken two bites at the problem over five years. We could and should have done it as soon as we came in, in 1981.
It is also a matter, not just of the composition of governing bodies, but of the powers that they are given. I agree with everything that has been said about giving them more strength, provided that one has the right governing body. Otherwise, why give more powers to a governing body which is as warped as those that we have seen in so many schools? Once the membership is right,


one can talk seriously about giving financial power to the schools; far more than we have ever dreamt of doing so far in British education. It is something for which I have long argued.
The ultimate logic of having a say or an input or having control over the curriculum is to go the American way. Instead of having rates as we now do, a subject dominated by the cost of education, and trying to get rid of the rates, the answer is possibly to turn rates, as in the United States, into a property tax to fund education. One could than have a real parental say, because then local communities would be paying and understanding, and therefore taking a greater interest in what goes on in schools. I am not saying that that is the way that we should go, but that is the logic of dealing with choice. Choice is about what is taught in the schools.
Many of my hon. Friends are not just talking about that, or even wanting to. They are really talking about the choice between schools, and accepting the imperfections of the present system. Now we get into how one tackles the problem. I trust the people—I think that that is the phrase that was used tonight. I trust the parents. I want to give them a greater say. Unfortunately, on the basis of our present legislation, it is not good enough. In Leeds in the past month I have had constituency case after constituency case because the Labour-controlled city council is now engineering catchment zones for primary schools, the most popular schools in Leeds. It is absolute chaos and is causing enormous anxiety, concern and upset.
The Yorkshire Evening Post has exposed what is going on inside the Labour group on the city council, which controls education. These are the abuses to which I alluded in discussing the Bill which the Government thankfully brought in; abuses by councillors with regard to propaganda on the rates. I have said time and time again that it is not just a matter of publicity. It is about the people who are there and who write the publicity, who are hired to write it, and the increasing role in the system, not of the officials themselves, but of the professional politicians.
The Yorkshire Evening Post has exposed what is happening in Leeds, where Councillor Driver of the hard Left is supposed to be a lecturer in another college, but he is a full-time council member. He has moved in, he has a desk, and he is sacking or not reappointing the professional staff. The director of education is being increasingly isolated and has very few staff. I said in Committee—I knew then—that before Christmas they were out to get the director of education in Leeds because they found his views unpalatable.
We have serious problems with the present system in terms of the composition and powers of governing bodies. Parents should have more say and we should have done more than we have done, but the problem is to find the way to do it. I have told my hon. Friends that they are strong on theory but lacking when it comes to the practicalities, as I have heard them so far—whether it is the direct voucher system or the interesting variation of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
I have to say what I am about to say simply because of my American experience. My hon. Friends are aware of all the time that I have spent in the United States, but I went on one specific occasion to look at both the voucher experience in California and, what is usually forgotten by friends of ours in this country who have written about it, the voucher experiments in East Hartford. These systems do not work as the theory dictates they should. Who, even

here in this House tonight, is prepared to cite any American experience? It was all the fashion 10 years ago, but nobody uses it now.
I shall tell Members why. The bureaucracy is appalling in getting the vouchers out to the parents, getting them into the schools, the staff at schools having to handle them and not wanting to. One cannot duck the fact that trade unions exist in the teaching professions. They do not want vouchers and make it very hard to work the system. That is one of the practical reasons why vouchers have not been successful.
Secondly, even the credit system of just allocating money to schools, which is much more tolerable and possible, is costly. It needs sophisticated computer programmes, which no doubt we can develop, and a lot of staff, if not in the schools. That was the experience in East Hartford.
The third reason is more telling, and that is the so-called dragging-up effect which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned in reply to my intervention. My hon. Friend accepts that there is possibly a problem in expanding a school ad infinitum to meet the numbers, because moods change. Interest in schools varies, fashions change, the quality of staff alters and heads disappear. Therefore, schools and their reputations change, although that is often the result of perception rather than reality. Then there is a problem because the school has been expanded. Sophisticated caravans cannot be wheeled in and out of playgrounds.
The converse of that is that the poorer schools will be dragged up and we shall never reach that logical ad absurdum position, as my hon. Friend put it. But that does not happen; rather the reverse. There is a spiral downwards of depression and deprivation in the schools, which start losing numbers. We see that in our constituencies in the cities, where there is already a rapid decline in numbers. The morale of staff declines, the better staff go to other schools, the subject range starts collapsing and parents become conscious that a school has a bad reputation. It gets worse and worse. Therefore, there is no dragging-up effect.

Mr. Peter Lilley (St. Albans): Precisely the same problems must occur in the private sector as schools change in popularity and effectiveness. There are limitations on the amount by which they can expand, and so on. Yet I am not aware that that has brought about the downfall of the private education sector. It has occasionally brought about the downfall of bad schools, but I should have thought that that was something to be welcomed and to be hoped for in the state sector as well.

Dr. Hampson: Unfortunately, it has not brought about the downfall of enough of the worst private schools. Standards in the state system, particularly in inner cities, are so bad that a false market is created. People who are desperate not to go to state schools which they perceive to be bad, and also for prestige and other reasons, are using schools in the private sector on which if they had any sense, they would not waste their money.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important point, but in the end every parent has to decide whether to send a son or daughter to a school that is running down such as my hon. Friend has described. Would my hon. Friend do that?

Dr. Hampson: I accept that point, because I want to find ways in which that becomes a real choice, but the scale of the problem cannot be avoided. Britain has seen a fall in pupil numbers of a third over 10 years, and in some parts of our cities a 40 per cent. fall. How could any voucher or pupil credit system work in those conditions? The movement of people is far too acute. That imposes an extra pressure on the better schools and a faster decline elsewhere. There is no evidence of the dragging-up effect working.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend concede that under the present system there is little incentive for a bad school to get better because local education authorities are allocating pupils away from the schools of parental first choice in order to maintain the input of resources into the schools which are less popular, and that hardly provides any incentive for or pressure on those schools to make themselves more attractive to parents?

Dr. Hampson: Of course, that is true, but some of the schemes, including my hon. Friend's scheme, are no answer. They do not grasp that fact because they perpetuate the problem of the relative decline in the perception of schools, which can be related to the dramatic fall in numbers of some and the improvement in others. The voucher schemes of various kinds make matters worse. That is what we are living with now. We have to try to find ways of coping with that. One can get parental choice systems and change the balance of power between local authorities and governing boards and parents, which is at the heart of it, to deal with the problem.
The system has not worked for a number of reasons. East Hartford is the best researched area to help us to understand why, because the American research had all sorts of oddities about it. It was largely an ethnic population, for one thing. East Hartford is an average lower middle-class semi-skilled to skilled professional catchment area. What was found, which is relatively true given the adjustments for California, was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in an intervention. He mentioned the unlikelihood of parents wanting to move. He was using that to attack a point of mine that one could not go on letting the schools get bigger and bigger, because when the Head changed and the reputation fell, what would happen to all the empty buildings?
The fact that parents are not readily prepared to move is the reason why the system would not work. The evidence of the American schemes is that no more than 7 per cent. of parents are prepared to move. The overwhelming majority of parents opt for their nearest school, and it was proved that there was no need for all the cost and bureaucracy of a voucher scheme. There can be a straight parental choice system without the cumbersome nature of the voucher system, because it is theoretical and ignores the practice.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I do not want to spoil my hon. Friend's enjoyment of his shadow boxing with the voucher system, which to my knowledge has not been introduced by anyone this evening, except my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). However, there seems to be a lack of internal consistency in his argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) rightly said that once people have opted for the secondary school system or for a primary school they

would be reluctant to change. That is not the same as avoiding shifts at the point of choice, which is generally the transition into the primary school system, or from the primary school system into the secondary school system. It would also act as a trigger to the school management to see how successful or unsuccessful its school was and give it a warning to do something about it for the following year.

Dr. Hampson: It is the same point. I am talking about human psychology. We all know from our own areas that parents normally prefer their nearest school. Of course, if it is evident that there is a better school not too far away they may make an effort, but if they are offered a choice, whether it be a transfer between sectors, from primary to secondary or within secondary schools, parents actually prefer their own schools. There are many studies which show that. When one talks about parental choice, that is the reality that one has to face.
The heart of the problem is not solved. The problem is declining standards, particularly in city schools, and good schools which have been mucked around by local authorities. One has to deal with particular aspects, whether it is local authority power, Government power, composition of governors or alternatives. One obviously could expand the assisted places scheme, which is a very useful way of enabling those who have little choice to go for more specialised schools. The magnet school idea must come into this country.
With the state system, one should be able to offer parents a choice of specialist subjects, not at 11 on supposed ability and future potential, but between schools that are good at mathematics or physics or specialise in modern languages, above the core range of subjects. We already do that with music, ballet and with the choir schools. Even the Labour Government had to accept that choir schools were the one exemption that they had to make in their comprehensive legislation. They had to leave choir schools to produce good choristers. That could be applied across the board. There are ways in which we can cope and give more choice to parents.
It seems perverse that I have to say, I hope not too strongly, that we appear to be talking about some of the attractive theoretical schemes, impractical as they are, on the heels of the teachers' strike, from which unfortunately we got little credit. I know that parents have increasingly started to blame the obstreperousness of the National Union of Teachers, and for years I have been preaching about what has happened to the NUT. However, parents are upset. The strike has gone on for a long time and they are worried about their children. We are in danger of telling parents that we are looking after a narrow group of parents and children. We are in danger of trying to help not only those who want to go to the private sector—they are by no means the majority—but those who are already in it. That is the greatest risk of all.
The last time we considered the voucher system, when the Conservative party was in opposition and then in Government, it was not to apply to private schools. The idea was to put choice into the state system. If the system were applied to private schools, an enormous bonanza of financial assistance would be given to those who have already selected private education. That would not be palatable politically. That is why the Government at that time, would not accept the broad range of that idea and why, despite the arguments of some of my colleagues, we


cannot have that system now. If we had such a system, we would be giving tens of millions of pounds to those who are already in the private sector. It would be perceived not only as an unnecessary increase in public expenditure but, in the context of the tragedies in the state sector of

education, as favouring the private sector, encouraging the growth of the public sector, encouraging a certain part of the middle classes to use the private sector and, above all, giving them financial help to do so.

Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who has brought a wiser and wider perspective of education to Conservative contributions. If there is one criticism of the hon. Gentleman it is that, in 26 minutes, one could possibly have had too much of a good thing.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his luck in being selected in the ballot and on his choice of subject. Listening to his contribution and those of his colleagues who followed him, I began to feel that some of those hon. Members might have been more interested in parading their theories of choice for each other's interest, entertainment and delight than in showing concern for the education of our children. Most hon. Members seemed more interested in the theory of choice than in the reality of education.
That interest in the theory of choice led the hon. Member for Southgate to put forward a rather glib description of a market force philosophy in education in which the only operation of choice was through buying and selling education. The idea that one could choose through the ballot box did not seem to occur to him. It led some other hon. Members to make bizarre remarks. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) seemed to criticise primary education for being child-centred. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House believed that education should be centred on the child. The Plowden report andall that has been best in the enormous achievements of primary education have been centred on the development of the child.
Rather less happily, the theory of choice led the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to make some rather tasteless and ill-considered remarks about the personal circumstances of the former director of education for Cheshire. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that he has made an enormous contribution to education ideas and practice.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sorry to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but I made a specific point of saying that I was not in any way seeking to be derogatory about the former director of education for Cheshire. I was merely saying that the local authority showed a peculiar set of priorities by dispensing with his services and replacing him with someone else rather than using those resources in ways that would benefit the children in school.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman must judge for himself whether it is right and proper that he should use parliamentary privilege to bring in the circumstances of an individual's pension. As that man has given so much to public education, not only through his contribution to the Cheshire local education authority but through the Schools Council, the hon. Gentleman's criticisms were less than considered. He may well wish to reflect on them and perhaps drop a line to the gentleman concerned.
The debate seems to have centred on the idea of choice. Opposition Members, after hearing the contributions from the Government Benches, believe that it is impertinent that the idea of choice and the bastion of choice should come from there. The Government have destroyed the most important choice of all in the past six years, or at least have gone a good way to limiting it. That is the choice of

quality. If parents now wish to find and choose a school which has well-paid and well-motivated teachers, they must look very carefully, as there are no well-paid teachers and motivation is hard to come by.
If parents want to find a school where there is a sufficiency of good textbooks and library books, that sort of choice is hard to make after the past five years. Similarly, maintenance and supervision and well-cared-for and clean schools are all much harder to find after the way that the Government have capped the rates and made it extremely difficult for local education authorities to respond to the parents' choice, through the ballot box, to spend more of their rates on education. That is a real choice and a real way of expressing that choice.

Mr. Lilley: Has the hon. Gentleman not read Her Majesty's inspectors' report on the impact of spending policies on local authorities, which concluded that there had been an improvement in the supply of books yet again in a recent year, that of all local authorities only a third had a shortage of books and that the shortages in 90 per cent. of that third were due not to a shortage of funds but to the inadequacies of management by teachers or by the local authority? There was no sign, except in 3 per cent. of all schools, that a shortage of funds had led to a shortage of books.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should look at the statistics provided by the National Book League and the Publishers Association; he will then see that that is not the case.
I should like to concentrate on the element of choice on which the debate has focused; that is the choice of school. Exactly what does that involve, and for whom is the choice being made? The reality is that the choice to which Conservative Members were referring is a choice which very few people can enjoy. To operate the sort of choice that Conservative Members talk about, one would have to live in an urban or suburban area, be better off and, most important of all, be mobile. If one lives in a rural area which has only one secondary school or it cannot afford transport, there is no chance to make a choice between schools.
Similarly, there are difficulties about how to make such a choice work. Hon. Members spoke about attractive schools, but what does that mean? What makes a school attractive to the public? It may be attractive because it has a young and dynamic new headmaster with a fresh attitude and a way of getting publicity in the local paper. It may be attractive because it has good examination results. It is difficult, however, for parents to understand those examination results in the context of the intake of the school, the enjoyment of the children in the school or the achievement in relation to the children's potential.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: rose—

Mr. Fisher: I cannot give way any more: I want to allow another Government Member to speak and I have already given way several times.
Choice has been extended over the past three years, but that choice is an incoherent one. As there are dropping school rolls, many of the articulate and intelligent parents who see the main chance can choose their schools, but that does not always have a happy effect on the balance of education in an area. Some very attractive schools are attracting parents who are able and mobile enough to move


their children to them. That is causing wider and wider disparities between schools; because some schools are attracting the more able academic children, there is a disparity between intakes and the potential of intakes.
The hon. Member for Southgate recognised the illogic in his choice of subject when he spoke about having to give more money to more schools, but he failed to see the stupidity in that, as that would enrich the good schools and further run down the poor ones.
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did not concentrate only on the idea of choice in schools. He also talked about the importance of information, parental rights and control. Unfortunately, he made a mistake in linking information and control, because they are different. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was wise and sensible enough to recognise that the idea of a shift from a professionally focused education system to a consumer and parent-focused one is new. Political parties have yet come to terms with it, or may have begun to do so only during the past few years, as has the teaching profession. Indeed, political parties are probably ahead of the teaching profession.
There is an enormous difference between information and scrutiny, and access and control. It is right and proper that parents should have more information about curricula, schemes of work and homework, especially what it is for, how it is set and how it fits into a child's development. Parents should have more information about school ethos, discipline, admission and exclusion policies, safety, health and midday supervision. They should have far more information on the fabric and resources of schools. Few parents know what capitation is spent on their children. When they are told that in a primary school in a top junior class only 10p a day is spent per child on consumable resources for that child, they are shocked and are given a wholly new perspective of the difficulties of teaching children with minimum resources.
Moreover, parents should have greater access to teachers, reports and discussions, not only for their child's school, but for the locality's schools, so that they can see the plurality of choice, and how their child's education at his school fits into local education. None of that is easy. It all costs money and takes teachers' time, which is an extremely scarce and expensive commodity. The problem is different with control, which should not be solely with parents. Education must be a partnership between teachers, parents, others in the community, pupils, especially in secondary schools, the local education authority and the Government. The seductive idea that because parents should have more rights and involvement they should have more control is mistaken. They should have more partnership and involvement, but not more control.
It is interesting that we have talked solely about the choice of school and not about the choice of curriculum or subjects. No hon. Member has mentioned second languages, music, drama or three-dimensional art, between which children must choose at school. They all require additional resources. It is not merely a matter of choosing the totality of a school, but of making choices inside a school. Above all, there is the choice by the ballot box—the right of electors to choose to spend more on education. Only in that way can we open up the choices, information, rights and involvement that parents should have.

11 . 18 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I was much derided in my intervention when I suggested that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility for a much larger number of parents to exercise their choice under the present system by spending money on private schooling which they at present spend, for example on a second car. None of my hon. Friends who has spoken has suggested that the money should be handed to parents to spend as they choose, because they know that parents will not spend additional income on education. The fact that the percentage of income that families spend on education has not risen in 100 years is clear.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that, at a time when the education system is reeling from the teachers' strike and other difficulties, the electorate will look to the Conservative party to improve the standard of education in the short term.
Everyone knows that this can be best effected by the standard of the head teacher. The standard of most schools depends heavily on the standard of the head teacher. One of the lamentable features of the present education system is that most head teachers receive the minimum amount of training for their job and most have a nugatory amount of power compared with the power that a good manager ought to be given. Head teachers also have a limitless tenure which is absurd. I believe that most head teachers should be given, as they are in the independent sector, a limited tenure which can be extended if it is considered beneficial.
Governors should be given a proper job. I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken earlier that the present education system is bizarre. The money is provided by central Government, but the Government neither hire not fire a single member of staff. The local education authorities may hire or fire the staff but they have no control over the day-to-day deployment of that staff. Those that have control over the day-to-day deployment have no control over the amount of resources they receive. If we wish to improve the educational system, we should look at some of the in-built weaknesses which have been allowed to survive for so long.
I am aware that time has run out. I urge my hon. Friends to be wary of approaching the electorate with some high flown theoretical scheme when there are many more less high flown things which could improve education in the short-term.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on getting this debate for the Boyson Glee Club and their rendering of "No turning back".
I am a little puzzled by this theme of no turning back, because they seem to be returning to privilege and selection in education. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on emphasising the responsibilities of parents and the right to trust parents. That is important.
However, I caution the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility of parents is an onerous one. We can either as parents, or as those interested in education, pick out the first class schools and the rotten schools. However, it is a more testing task to decide between the very good school and the school which is of a slightly poorer standard. We


sometimes put an unfair burden on parents by suggesting that they should exercise choice when they have a difficult choice to make. I enter the caution that, although it is possible to make a judgment on the present standards of the school, one must also take into account what the school will be like next year, the year after that or seven years hence. If we could predict which will be the good schools of the future and which will be the bad, it would be easier to prevent schools from deteriorating.
A choice based on future standards is a difficult task to perform. The danger is that, because people exercise a choice, they start to preordain in which direction a school will be pushed. If one is not careful, one can push a school downhill. Based on objective criteria a school may not go downhill but for the exercise of parental choice.
However, because of the areas in which people live there are often no choices. There may be too long a distance between schools and thus one cannot offer a choice. In the large cities, those who choose a denominational school do not get a choice between two denominational schools because of the distance between the schools. Choice is important but must be treated with care.
The hon. Member for Southgate did not touch on vouchers, but other Conservative Members did mention them. The first problem is that schools do not have rubber sides and it is difficult to move a school building and take it away to another site. It is extremely difficult to add or take away from a school building, although many local authorities would love to be able to expand the number of children that they can take on a site. When I was a teacher, I felt that one of the most depressing things was to have to teach in overcrowded schools. Now, because of falling rolls, the extra class room, where things can be left out and developed is an extremely useful resource, and it would be unfair to schools to press them to take more and more pupils when they cannot provide the extra buildings.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was keen on market orientation, but schools are not like cans of beans. The danger is that the more we encourage parental choice, the more we encourage them to look at the outside appearance—the label on the can—rather than at the contents. I have talked to heads who are worried about the way in which, because of falling rolls and parental choice, they have to do a public relations job for the schools, rather than putting the emphasis on what goes on in the schools. Sadly, that effort goes into convincing parents that that is a good school, when the reality is different. We should be wary of that.
We should be making sure that we give all children a passport to achievement, which should allow parents and pupils to make a choice. However, the choice should not be between good and bad education but between different types—as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said—of good education. Parents want to be able to choose between two good schools and then look for varieties in the curricula and so on, not between a good and a bad school.
Spare resources should be spent on the existing schools to make sure that they are good. Children should get off to a good start, which should make nursery education universally available, for those parents who want it, to all three-and four-year-olds. In Gloucestershire, there is no nursery education, in Somerset there is 1 per cent.

provision, and in West Sussex, Havering and Bromley there is a 2 per cent. provision. Some local authorities still let no children into primary school before their fifth birthday. All this shows that we have a long way to go before we can start expanding the choice of good schools.
Too many parents choose schools on the state of the buildings. It is extremely depressing to go to schools where the head, the local authority and the parents would all like to spend money on improving the fabric of the schools, but cannot. A major problem, for example, is leaking roofs. There is no money because of rate capping and all the other Government measures.
We should ensure that parents can choose between well-maintained schools. Tameside, for example, is greatly displeased at the way that the Government are giving capital allocations to improve buildings. In Leeds, next year, the local authority will be able to spend only 6 per cent. of the money that it estimates it is necessary to spend on school buildings. All around the country is a depressing picture of delapidated school buildings.
I would argue strongly that class size is one of the most important factors in education. I pay a tribute to the Government in that they have managed to improve the pupil-teacher ratio. However, in many cases, we have to go still further. Many parents want small classes so that the teacher can take into account the needs of the individual pupils, not just to teach them and give them information, but to ascertain the children's problems and help them to overcome their learning difficulties. If we offer parents that, we are offering them real choice.
I would argue strongly that we must look at the width of the curriculum. It is appalling to discover that in Trafford in 1986 no swimming lessons are given in the schools. When I went to school in Trafford just after the war, swimming was in the curriculum. All these years after, it is sad that we cannot afford to let children enjoy swimming lessons, bearing in mind the implications for children's safety.
I could offer many arguments about ways in which I should like to see choice. I am very concerned at the way in which education is beginning to cease to be free. It is worrying that the parents in some schools are being asked to raise ever more money for basic school resources. However carefully that is done, it puts unfair pressure on parents who are on low income. In Solihull, one finds that in one school the capitation from the local authority is £31,000, with the parents contributing round about £12,000 this year for the basic requirements. If we want to start talking of choice, it is far more important to ensure that all schools are adequately resourced and that there is free education at the point of use rather than putting on to parents charges, particularly when some parents find this very difficult.
I would argue that many youngsters are turned off school by the continual demands at school for children to produce more money. As hon. Members will know, a child comes home from a school and always asks for money at a wrong or inconvenient time. The parents may have spent a bit too much at the weekend so that, when the child says that it has to have 50p on Monday morning, the parent does not have it. The parents then start passing comment about the school, and the feeling builds up in some children that there is a conflict between parents and school. I notice some Conservative Members shaking their heads, but they obviously do not represent areas such as


mine where parents are hard up and find it difficult to meet demands to pay for some of the facilities that in state education, I believe, should be provided free.
I could make many other points about primary and secondary schools in the country. Before we start talking about giving people choice, we have to make that sure that it is a choice between first class schools for all children.
I fear that those who have spoken of vouchers are not referring to choice as between first class schools but are referring to the introduction into the country of a rationing system such as existed in wartime. Conservative Members say that there are not enough resources available in the country for the first class education of every child. They are saying that there will have to be a rationing system. This would encourage a black market; some parents would be encouraged not to take up their share but would put up with a second or third rate school, while others would be able to buy privilege by topping up their vouchers. Before contemplating such a system, we should first face up to the fact that in this day and age the country ought to be able to provide all children with a first class education. If we do that, there will be no need for a voucher system. Parents would then be choosing between different education resources and different education systems rather than between a first class school in one place and a second or third class school somewhere else. It is important that we offer an education that is excellent in all schools. That is the key, rather than referring to making a phoney choice.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, I shall not give way. If I do so, I will end up by being unfair to the Minister.
If Conservative Members do not realise that their voucher system is a rationing system, they should look at it again. The Opposition want a first class education to be provided for all children.
I want to deal briefly with one other point: that there has been no increase in the number of working class youngsters who enter higher education. The problem is not that the number of working class youngsters who enter higher education has gone down; the problem is that the percentage has gone down. The participation rate of youngsters from the middle classes has increased rapidly but the same increase in participation has not been achieved by working class youngsters. That is worrying, but I stress again that the numbers have not gone down.
The only way in which to raise educational standards is to get parents, pupils and teachers to co-operate. Before that can happen the teachers' dispute must be settled. That will raise morale in schools. We must then ensure that conflict does not arise between parents and teachers. That is another aspect of the voucher system. There must be partnership.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to keep on referring to Conservative Members as having argued for vouchers when not one single Conservative Member has done so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a point of argument. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bennett: That was a rather poor and spurious point of order. Several Conservative Members referred to vouchers. Those who did not do so did it by implication.

I should be delighted if all Conservative Members denounced vouchers, but they will not, of course, do so. Parents, pupils and teachers must co-operate. Vouchers will not achieve co-operation. Parents should be not only involved in the management of schools but partners with teachers in the education of their children. Children are in school for only part of the day. It is therefore most important that parents should participate in the education of their children and that they should take an interest in the details of their education and back up the teachers. If cooperation and partnership between them can be achieved, standards will be raised.
If people are encouraged to measure schools by means of a voucher system, the opportunity for building up that kind of confidence will be destroyed. I hope that we have heard the last of the voucher system in this debate and that the Conservative party will consider seriously the raising of standards in schools rather than the introduction of divisive proposals.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on introducing this debate in so interesting and thoughtful a manner. My hon. Friend and I have done business before. This is quite like old times. Indeed, I come from the same stable as a number of my hon. Friends who declined to turn back. We represent a touching example of pluralism inside the Conservative party. I should confess that at one time I, too, helped to write a pamphlet. I wish my hon. Friends as much success with theirs as we had with ours.
The main contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and those of many of my hon. Friends should make us all look afresh at things that we take too easily for granted. In particular, he reminded us that parents are the educators par excellence They bear a huge part of the burden of educating our children and young people. This Government have long recognised that most parents do this job well. We recognise, too, that many would like to contribute more to it than the education system has in the past allowed. We further argue that, if parents were allowed to make a fuller contribution, our school system would be the better for it. I am with my hon. Friends on all that.
It was for those reasons that we took action, prodded on by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and others, in the Education Act 1980. It is interesting to note how little the Education Act 1944 had to say on parental rights. It contained only a very general assertion of the parental right of choice which could often not be effectively exercised when it came to practice. In the 1980 Act we gave parents a statutory right to express a preference for the maintained school to which their child should be admitted, and we supported that right by requiring parents to be adequately informed about the schools in their area.
We obliged the local education authority and the governors of the school to meet that preference to the greatest practical extent, provided that, if there were special entry requirements for the school, the child satisfied them. Parents were also given the right of appeal in case their expressed preference was not met. The appeal arrangements led each year to several thousand successful appeals. The House may be interested in the broad figures.
It is my understanding that between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of parents are successful in securing their first preference. I speak as a parent who has just been successful in my choice for the education of one of my children.
The 1980 Act did not guarantee that every expressed preference would always be met. No law could do that. There are always bound to be some schools which are over-subscribed—schools which either cannot be physically enlarged or where an increase in size might impair those very qualities which make them so popular. Nor ought we just to accept that less popular schools should be half-empty. It may not be possible to close them, because the schools could not go elsewhere. That is not only a problem in rural areas. The right answer could be to keep schools like that reasonably full but to make them better so that they become more popular.
The 1980 Act also widened parental choice through the assisted places scheme which serves to provide the same kind of alternative to the maintained school that the former direct grant grammar schools provided. I thoroughly deplore the wanton destruction of that well-tried alternative, and I say that not just because I am a product of a direct grant school. In my view, the direct grant school provided an admirable bridge between the maintained and the independent sectors, over which many children like myself were able to cross. My hon. Friends will recall that the last Labour Government can fairly be said to have created more independent schools than anyone in history, including Edward VI.
It was the destruction of the direct grant schools which led to our introduction of the assisted places scheme. That scheme gives parents of bright children with a low or modest income the opportunity to choose for their child a school which is not part of the maintained sector. That is a valuable freedom. When the assisted places scheme began in 1981–82, just over 4,000 pupils benefited. That figure has gone up to over 21,000. When the scheme is fully operational after the September 1987 intake there will be about 35,000 assisted places in the 226 participating schools.
The 1980 Act did more than widen parental choice. It increased parental influence by requiring most schools to have a governing body which serves only that school, and it provided for parent governors on every school governing body. The Act was fully implemented only in September 1985, so the system of parent governors is still in many instances in the developmental stage. Parents are still in the learning stage about how to use their new influence to help improve their children's schooling.
A number of people have urged the Government to go beyond the 1980 Act by a further widening of parental choice through an expansion of the assisted places scheme beyond its planned size, or by creating or re-creating direct grant schools. We should, and will, give serious attention to those proposals. There has been a good deal of media speculation about those and other matters. I am sure that none of us believes everything that we read in the newspapers unless it is complimentary, but I should like to say a word more seriously about the speculation.
For at least a decade and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has said, arguably for longer, there has been concern about how we can best raise standards and the quality of our education.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), made a famous speech at Ruskin college almost 10 years ago on this subject. I agreed with most of what he then said. Only a few years before that he and his hon. Friends would have denounced the very sentiments he was expressing then as the ravings of Right-wing extremists.
There is still considerable concern about standards and quality in education. In my judgment, that is related not only to worry about the consequences of the teachers' dispute. Nor should it be taken as an outrageous attack on our education service, which does marvellous work, much of it ill reported, if reported at all.
It does not seem to be self-evident that the way in which we try to deliver education in Britain is necessarily the best way to provide for the needs of our young people. Many of the things that were assumed when the 1944 Act was drafted—such as the system of financing education and the leverage given by that to central Government, issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred—have changed over the years.
It is right that all these matters should be openly debated. Discussing them is not a sign of lack of faith in the maintained sector of education, or what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to, in a happy phrase, as the "mainstream education sector". It is an indication of our passionate concern to see education improved. It is interesting to note that the only serious debate on these matters is taking place in the Conservative party. Doubtless others will follow where we lead. I notice, for example, that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not able to be here tonight, has already sniffed the wind, and I suppose a few others will lift their nostrils to it in due course.
In that spirit, I come to discuss—I am not sure what to call them now, vouchers or credits; there is, clearly, an administrative distinction between the two—access arrangements, which some have called the direction of resources to schools which can attract parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate referred to it in that way.
It is ludicrous for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to suggest that the subject interests my hon. Friends only because they want to strengthen the independent sector of education or undermine the mainstream sector. I have read carefully what they have written and I have listened to them on the subject on more occasions than tonight's debate. I dare say that I shall have to listen to them on more occasions still, and that will be to my benefit, if not to theirs. [Interruption.] Flattery is all right so long as one does not inhale. They have made it abundantly clear that they want to improve the quality of education for all children, and it is a travesty of their argument to suggest otherwise.
The possibility of introducing vouchers—I take the point about the administrative distinction between vouchers and credits—was examined thoroughly during the last Parliament. The central idea is that parents should be given the financial power, by means of a voucher or other notional entitlement, to act as the customer of the school. Under credits—as, I imagine, under vouchers—each school would stand or fall financially by its ability to attract and retain parental custom.
As the Secretary of State explained in his answer of 22 June 1984—when I was happily engaged as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland—a voucher system could not reproduce a true free market. Market forces would


have to be constrained in three ways. While on another occasion I should be happy to have the point explained to me if I am wrong, I should have thought that the same argument about market forces would obtain were one talking about credits or the direction of resources, in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate discussed the matter.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) would regard the three constraints as state dictation or restriction, but they are these. First, the customer could not refuse to consume. Schooling would remain compulsory. I cannot really believe that anyone seriously opposes that constraint, at least in terms of the national interest. Secondly, the provider cannot be allowed to charge what the market will bear. I think that the House will acknowledge that as well. In the maintained sector, schooling has to be free of charge to parents, but that does not mean that they are not allowed to make a contribution. Thirdly, the customer cannot be allowed to accept a shoddy service. The national interest requires a minimum quality.
I concede straightaway that, to the extent that quality is not guaranteed now, the arguments for finding other ways in which to deliver it grow more attractive. If we thought that we were doing everything perfectly, this debate would not be taking place. The third constraint highlights another important issue. It is not strictly true that the parent is the customer. The customer is the child. The parent acts as proxy for the child, but not all children would get a fair deal in their education if they depended wholly on their parents. I suppose that that is the Dotheboys Hall argument. That underlines the need for minimum standards of quality.
Some of my hon. Friends argue that such paternalism, however well meant—I hope that we will not doubt one another's motives—cannot be delivered. I imagine that they would also argue that it will anyway discourage responsibility. They argue that parents should be free to make good or bad choices and that they will become responsible parents and citizens only if they are treated in that way. Dignity and freedom, they would argue—I think that I am drawing on some of their propositions—depend on the responsibility that goes with choice. I understand those arguments, but I say again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, that, for a century or more, like every other country, Britain has worked on the premise that the state should be the final trustee for children's education. We have believed in striking a balance between that responsibility and the choice accorded to parents.
Nothing that I have seen in education or elsewhere in life leads me to conclude that to talk about balance in this way is as preposterous as some people seem to suggest.
If full account is taken of the constraints that I have mentioned, a voucher scheme and the transition to it become extremely complex and involve long, complicated and controversial legislation, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said three years ago. They also threaten to become very costly. Hence my right hon. Friend's earlier conclusion that a voucher scheme is not a simple or easy option.

Mr. Lilley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: I have two minutes. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to discuss this matter.

Mr. Lilley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: I have two minutes.
My right hon. Friend's conclusion does not mean that he and the Government are satisfied that the present system gives parents the choice and influence to which they are entitled. The surest way in which to give parents choice is to have more good schools to choose from. Raising the standards that are achieved at all schools is the central aim of the Government's policies, as set out in our White Paper, "Better Schools", which was published a year ago. Those policies are designed to make every school in the maintained sector better by a curriculum which develops the potential of each pupil, whatever his or her abilities and aptitudes, and prepares all adequately for the responsibilities of adult life, of citizenship and for work.
Our policies involve a large reform of school examinations and a range of measures to improve teaching quality. I believe that the proposals in our Bill, which we should soon have an opportunity to discuss, will also increase parental choice and help schools and the quality of education.
We have set out a range of sensible policies in "Better Schools" and elsewhere. I am less convinced that we have either the hammer or the nails to enable those policies to work as effectively as we would like. I am sure that we will have any number of chances to discuss how to provide a delivery mechanism for the policies on which, in so far as they concern the quality and content of education, we are substantially agreed. I am sure that we shall have many chances in the weeks and months ahead, as we discuss legislation, to discuss the provision of a delivery mechanism for the policies in relation to quality and content of education, on which we are substantially agreed.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: It is not impossible to envisage the content of briefing papers put before Mr. Brezhnev and his colleagues early in 1979. Military strategists saw the opportunity to give the Soviet armed forces combat experience in difficult country, where new weaponry and lethargic conscript troops could be tested and toughened, safe in the knowledge that Afghanistan lay within a sphere of influence certain to be left alone by the Western world, however angry it might become in its opposition.
Idealogues may have pressured the powers that be to consolidate political ties with a strongly pro-Muscovite lobby in Kabul, albeit a small one—a lobby that, if granted power, must never be permitted to set precedent and retract from its Marxist-Leninist grip. Nor would the remaining pragmatists be left in doubt: Iran's instability; the conventional, if overrated, argument supporting Soviet allegiance to the need for a warm water port; President Zia's then unpopularity; closer proximity to Gulf oil; a further foot abroad; and, thus, clear political opportunism were strong arguments indeed.
Only history stood in their way—a nation unconquered, unoccupied and unbeaten, imbued with a spirit and culture that had protected generations against foreign incursions and achieved the blend of religious fervour, independent vision, unabashed individualism and the love and embrace for the wild yet beautiful terrain that produced freedom fighters capable of fighting a dedicated holy war to protect their very being.
There, at Christmas time in 1979, were the seeds of the conflict with the Mujahidin that lasts to this day—a war that occupies at any given time 120,000 Soviet troops on active service; a war likely to continue, which has led to a quarter of the population leaving Afghanistan for destinations outside their borders, primarily in Pakistan, where are now the world's greatest concentration of refugee camps.
The war has become a subject matter of super-power summits, and provided General Zia with a Christmas present in 1979 that has sustained a Western-oriented and relatively stable Pakistan for the past six years, thus creating an acclaimed statesman out of a man whom the Western press then branded as an international pariah.
When I visited the frontier of Pakistan on December 27 last year, the demonstrations against the Soviet Union, Washington, Islamabad and London brought with them a renewed optimism about a fast-approaching political settlement to a six-year-old war. I believe that it is hollow optimism, founded on rhetoric, not reality.
In part, the Geneva talks in November had offered Gorbachev a far greater opportunity than Reagan for creating the subtle media environment conducive to political accord. By adopting a conciliatory tone and soft approach towards the West, the Soviet Union was in a position to insist firmly that an end to the war required in the first place direct talks with Afghanistan and Pakistan. The purpose of such a move was clear. It was an attempt to put pressure on the Pakistan Government to change their position, and part of the long-term process of weakening Pakistan's support for the Mujahidin; a policy which in turn poses a considerable threat by the Soviet Union to the geopolitical stability of the region.
Neither historically nor in military strategy throughout the six-year war has the Soviet Union suggested that a new, non-aligned Afghanistan free of Soviet troops from its soil was a reality or beneficial to them. The signals and informal reactions to the six rounds of Geneva talks provided a lacklustre shop window from which the Soviet Union could offer an acceptable face to the West.
The Soviet Union has annexed Afghanistan. Its short-term strategy is to stay there with the least amount of military and political support necessary to ensure the pro-Soviet regime. To minimise their presence, the Soviet Union must minimise the threat from the Mujahidin, reduce Western hostility and create sufficient discomfort in Pakistan's internal policies to reduce its support for the jehad.
The Russians are pursuing a "running sore" policy against Pakistan, variously and vigorously. It constitutes a scorched earth policy inside Afghanistan, drawing more refugees to the camps in Baluchistan and North-West Frontier province, and putting a further burden on the Pakistan Government's increasingly onerous position, under pressure from aid-fatigued international agencies.
The policy constitutes further border incursions, which place additional pressure on Pakistan's defence budget. It constitutes the development of a tribal network of well-paid, pro-Soviet informers instead of military cover along the porous mountain border dividing their countries. That is more effective than any military blockade of the Duran line could possibly be. It constitutes continued pressure at the Geneva talks and in international forums geared to alleviate Western hostility, thus drawing Pakistan into the political solution and thereby restricting direct American support for the jehad. It constitutes an escalation of the process of destabilisation and friction in Pakistan's towns in Baluchistan and North-West Frontier province, through the activities of the Khad, especially in Peshawar, the winter capital of Afghanistan.
The position of refugees is an integral and important part of the policy. Since 1975, when 1,400 refugees were registered in the North-West Frontier province, a steady influx has led to the establishment of 380 refugee tented villages in 15 districts along the 1,500-mile Pakistani-Afghan border. With an influx of about 3,000 a month at the beginning of 1986, those camps hold 2·6 million registered refugees and a growing number of unregistered, and therefore unsupported, refugee families established around the refugee tented villages. The Pakistan Government registered support from United Nations agencies and voluntary agencies, both of which have expanded the scope and extent of their relief operations. As early as 1981, the Pakistan Government saw their supervisory role as a major drain on domestic resources.
From a simple process of cash maintenance allowance, the relief assistance now entails the distribution of basic and supplementary food rations, shelter in different forms, such as tents, tarpaulins and temporary huts, portable water supply ranging from hand pumps to open surface wells to machine-operated tube wells, comprehensive medical and health and hygiene care, primary education facilities and religious instruction, veterinary cover and numerous communal services and facilities, such as income-generating vocational training and self-reliance projects.
However, the refugees' problems are escalating. Even when I was there about two months ago, between 4,000 and 5,000 refugees were arriving each month. Registration


in many areas has stopped. Many refugees are moving to urban centres. Necessarily, the Pakistan authorities are considering setting up refugee camps in the Punjab, where there is no natural Pathan affinity as exists across the Afghan-Pakistan border. Shelter for the refugees is badly needed from the international community.
Many camps have received no sugar for six months because of the diminishing resources going to the international agencies. Donor fatigue has combined with the need last year to transfer many resources to Africa—in many cases, rightly so. Although each person used to get a tea ration of 90 g per month, the present ration is 45 g. The kerosene ration, which used to be 20 litres per person per month, has been reduced to 12 litres in incredibly cold conditions. In 1979–80, the wheat ration was 23 kg; in 1981, it decreased to 20 kg and it is now 15 kg per person per month. Health problems are growing considerably; TB and dysentery are on the increase and malaria is still evident.
The problems of the refugees are a major drain on the resources of the Pakistan Government, which adds to the difficulties of that Government, tests their resilience and their tremendous generosity to the Afghan refugees, and adds weight to the long, running-sore policy of the Soviet Union to try to destabilise the North-West Frontier province and Baluchistan.
I was keen for the House to debate the subject because it is vital for us regularly to assess the current position in Afghanistan, to set the contemporary developments against the historical backcloth of Soviet penetration in that country; to provide an opportunity for the House fully to assess the appalling evidence of human rights violations which continue inside Afghanistan; to give the House the opportunity, particularly at the present time, to look at the humanitarian assistance now required to assist the growing number of refugees; and to enable us on the Back Benches to question the Government about the extent of our practical, humanitarian assistance to those in need, to the refugees outside the country and to the displaced people inside Afghanistan. I hope that this debate will give us a short but important opportunity to make an assessment of some of those areas.
But I believe—it is important to place on the record my view and why I hold it—that the Soviet Union is in for a long stay in Afghanistan and has every intention of being there for a long time. The historical involvement of the Soviet Union must be clearly understood before hon. Members draw any conclusions about the lack of any real success with the proximity talks or the true intentions behind the propaganda initiatives launched since Christmas by the Soviet Union.
The long-term policy of the Soviet Union is its determination to stay in Afghanistan until the puppet regime is consolidated. The Government and people of Pakistan have accommodated more than 2·6 million displaced Afghans on their soil and on that of neighbouring countries. The Soviets have started air violation of Pakistan's territory, have spread disinformation among the Afghan refugees and Mujahidin, and have put pressure on the Government of Pakistan to begin direct negotiations. There is a hectic struggle by the Soviets to undermine the correct policy of the present regime on the Afghanistan issue, as well as the very integrity, sovereignty and solidarity of Pakistan. The Soviets try to avail themselves of the chance of a longer stay in Afghanistan in order to

impose Sovietisation on the younger generation there, and to wait for political change in Pakistan's attitude which, they think, may be to their benefit.
Political propaganda to the contrary is misleading and without substance. Soviet military assistance will not be withdrawn, although it may decrease in size, commensurate with the reduction of the perceived threat, until a pro-Soviet Government is firmly in place. Nothing short of that will suffice.
More proof of this point comes from an assessment of Soviet policy, which is divided into two sectors. In the occupied areas the process of military, political, economic, religious, social and cultural Sovietisation has been accelerated. In the liberated regions, the villages are sometimes suddenly attacked and the dwellers killed, their shelters demolished, the harvest burnt, the economic resources destroyed and the strategic localities depopulated. These brutal tactics were used against the Muslims of central Asia. By repeating them in Afghanistan, the Soviets want to induce the population either to accept the rule of a Communist Government or to emigrate to Pakistan or Iran. They are more than amply documented in the long catalogue of human rights violations in Ermacora's two United Nations reports on human rights in Afghanistan.
Eight important criteria need to be fulfilled with regard to human rights. They are the right to self-determination; the right of the Afghan people to choose their own economic, political and social system, free from outside intervention; the immediate removal of foreign troops from Afghanistan; a political settlement in Afghanistan, based on the withdrawal of foreign troops, and respect for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-aligned status of Afghanistan; a strict observance of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the event of a settlement and afterwards; a recognition of the right of the Afghan refugees to return to their homes in safety and honour; and the observance of the tenets of the Geneva convention, and the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment during the war in Afghanistan. The final criterion is the observance of the principles of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Government.
However, as much as I wish to see those eight important criteria fulfilled, I am not optimistic. On the contrary, as I have said, the Soviets have a long-term policy to stay, or at least to Sovietise the Afghan people. They want to establish a status quo. They want time to educate and indoctrinate the younger generation along Communist lines so that after a decade the Soviets will have dedicated sons working for their interests in Afghanistan.
Even if the Soviets do not annex Afghanistan physically, they would like to annex it ideologically to the Soviet Union to ensure the maintenance of an underling Communist regime in power in a strategic land. That can be achieved only by indoctrinating the younger generation and for that they need time.
Moreover, an overall campaign in educational, cultural, social, political, economic, military and religious institutions has been intensified to accelerate just such a process of Sovietisation in the occupied areas. The Soviets have concentrated on the Afghan youths. Every year, thousands of students from the elementary schools up to


university level are sent to the Soviet Union and other satellite countries where they are indoctrinated in Soviet policy.
For the freedom fighters, the position is clear. The Afghan Mujahidin would be well advised to prepare themselves for a protracted war of national liberation because there is no alternative except the continuation of their armed struggle against the occupation forces.
There is further evidence of that in an assessment of the Soviets' intervention in central Asia. It took them 10 years to consolidate power in central Asia. There was the Basmachi revolt in central Asia. Well-armed ground forces fought against the effort to extend Bolshevik control to the area. Eventually, by the end of the 1920s, the Bolsheviks had won by a combination of military repression, unwavering determination and economic development.
But the Soviets' task in Afghanistan will be that much more difficult, not least because rapid social transformation is hard in any country, but in Afghanistan it is almost impossible because the country has never been a colony of any of the imperial powers. It has no tradition of local administration which is so essential to a successful Sovietisation of an economy, and gives me much hope that this will not be implemented effectively by the Soviets as they would dearly like to see.
I have mentioned two of the Soviets' advantages—the armed force combat experience and the idealogues, the cementing of political ties and the strongly pro-Muscovite lobby in Kabul. But they face substantial disadvantges. Economically, it costs the Soviet Union some $100 million a day to run the army in a rugged country against stiff resistance. In the Islamic world they have substantially alienated themselves. This is a jehad, a holy war. The threat to Islam is felt throughout the Islamic world.
In the Third world the Soviet Union has lost the confidence of the non-aligned countries, as exemplified by the vote in New Delhi which was unanimous against the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan. That is costly politically. The Non-Aligned Movement constitutes some half of the world's population.
Furthermore, the presence of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan has cemented NATO policy. Major question marks have been left for the eastern bloc. After all, there was the Rumanian condemnation of their actions. I am firmly of the opinion that it made Soviet intervention in Poland much harder, and indeed put them in a position whereby strong action in Poland was minimised if not negated.
Then there is the critical domestic problem faced by the Soviet Union as a result of its continued presence on present lines in Afghanistan. That is the domestic problem of the Soveit Asiatic republics. The Muslims constitute one in five of red army conscripts. A Muslim population in 1982 of 18 per cent. in the Soviet Union is likely to be a population of nearly 25 per cent. in the year 2000. However, the Soviets fear that the impact of the Iranian revolution will spill over into the Soviet republics of central Asia and I think that they are extremely cautious and aware of the consequences of asking central Asians—for example there were some 9,000 conscripts in central Asia in 1980—to go in and fight against people who historically, culturally and traditionally are far more their brothers than Russians from Moscow.
Meanwhile, proximity talks continue. The four critical points essential to a political solution are well known to the House. They are preservation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and a nonaligned character of Afghanistan; the right of the Afghan people to determine their own form of government and choose their own economic political and social system without restraint; the creation of conditions which would allow the refugees to return voluntarily to their homes with safety and honour; and the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.
As The Times lucidly put it in a leader in the autumn of 1985:
As UN 'proximity talks' between Pakistan and the Afghan regime continue at Geneva there seems no hope of a way out of the impasse. The appointed mediator, Diego Cordovez, makes optimistic noises in vain. Broad agreement may exist between the respective parties on the subjects of eventual Afghan nonalignment and the return of refugees with 'safety and honour', but as ever there is intransigence on the all-important matter of Soviet troop withdrawal.
Anyone can draw up a timetable for withdrawal. What is needed is a clear sign of conviction to implement such a timetable; and Soviet policy and history militate strongly against such a course of action.
Meanwhile, among the resistance groups, there have been remarkable successes, in military terms worthy of the admiration and respect of the world. Afghanistan is a mosaic of a country. Its people form a patchwork quilt bringing together families and villages, fiercely loyal to their traditions and localities. Islam is the only unifying factor. It is wrong to attempt to emasculate the tribal system, but the Afghan people, represented by the party organisations in Peshawar, have in recent months shown greater unity, a unity of purpose which is much admired and needed by the international community. It is an international unity of purpose for which they should be commended and which will gain the Mujahidin increased international credibility.
All Afghans speak of the need for humanitarian aid. I believe that it is important that the Government consider how they can help on a bilateral, as well as multilateral basis. Today there is an acute need for food supplies in nearby areas and cash for the remote areas inside Afghanistan, where the price of local food is cheaper than the outlay for transportation of extra food would be. Certainly the supply of medical assistance and food within Afghanistan are most important factors in helping the people in their localities. The Government can then not only do a great service for the Mujahidin but also lessen Pakistani economic and social problems.
Whenever the Soviets intensify their bombing in strategic rural areas, thousands of victims pour into Pakistan which eventually will increase the population of refugees to an enormous number, posing threats to the political stability of the north-west frontier. That again necessitates the forming of a co-ordinated command and policy for the people inside the country. The more refugees there are, the more tension will build up between the locals and refugees and among the different refugee groups which can lead to clashes and insecurity among the locals and refugees.
Undoubtedly there is a great amount of good will between the refugees and the people of Pakistan. That has been achieved by the sincere efforts of the people and Government of Pakistan and the bond of the Pathan


people. The refugees and Pakistanis must strive to maintain the existing good will. It is here that the West and Britain can help.
It is in Afghanistan that the greatest need exists for international aid. The refugees abroad are looked after, more or less, by Pakistan, Iran and the international community. But if no help is offered in Afghanistan itself, the country will bleed to death. Chanelling aid to the Afghans is not easy, because of the war, but it is still possible. Reliable ways have been found by foreign aid organisations. It should be borne in mind that large parts of Afghanistan—80 per cent.—are under the control of the resistance organisations, which co-operate more succcessfully all the time. If Western democracies offer no help to the victims of this cruel war, they will have abdicated the knowledge of what peace and freedom are really worth.
This assistance can come in many forms. It can come in the form of food aid, medical assistance—in training Afghan doctors and nurses outside Afghanistan who then go inside Afghanistan to assist, in providing medical supplies and in sending the very sick abroad—clothes, shoes, tents, help with education and scholarships via the British Council. Food assistance is critical.
The Mujahidin's continued struggle, however, rests on the classic Maoist principles of warfare—guerrilla activity with the support of the Afghans' rural population inside their country and active propaganda outside, sustaining the Western support that they need. We should as a Government consider how we can assist with that publicity. There is a need for good feeders of information and training for them. Unconfirmed news is not used. There is a need for good quality news footage—not from Afghans with super-8 video cameras but from professionally trained foreign cameramen. There is a need then to stimulate interest in that film.
On humanitarian grounds, there are many aspects which we should consider actively. I firmly believe that west European countries now need to assess the level of support they give to Pakistan to assist the Afghan cause. Financial support for the refugees is dwindling while their number increases to form what in today's terms is the largest single concentration of refugees, which was officially put at 2·6 million in January 1986.
Undoubtedly, the Soviet Union has the will and the means to subdue Afghanistan completely. The single aspect of public opinion, which ultimately may spell success or failure for a United States venture, does not appear to have proved to be even a minor factor for the Soviet planners inside Afghanistan.
The spread of conflict beyond Afghanistan would invite outside powers into the region and might even lead to further conflict. The only alternative which should be acceptable to both parties is a neutral Afghanistan. A neutral Afghanistan would be a face-saving measure for the Soviets as well as for the Mujahidin. Neutrality as a means of policy should not, however, be imposed on the Afghans; rather it should be a policy that they adopt by preserving the independence of their country.
The Soviets may insist on a "neutralised" Afghanistan; the Afghans may insist on a "neutral" Afghanistan—that is a significant difference. The Soviet troops should withdraw and troops from Islamic countries or any other country should take over under an international agreement, mutually acceptable to both parties, to control law and order, if the need arises.
The Afghan factions based in Peshawar have continued to cement their unity of purpose, which is so important. A guarantee should be given by both sides not to interfere with each other's political affairs or with each other's nationalities. Both the Soviet Union and Afghanistan have the same ethnic groups living across each other's borders. Because of its geo-strategic location, Afghanistan always has played and still plays a vital role in the stability of the region. Any major event which takes place in Afghanistan has repercussions on the Persian gulf region and on Soviet-Asian security. A Soviet-dominated Afghanistan would affect the Persian gulf region and a prolonged war would affect Pakistan, which in turn would affect other countries of central Asia and the Indian ocean.
I believe that the only solution to the problem in the long run—I have outlined the difficulties which would have to be faced to achieve this solution—is to work towards a neutral Afghanistan, to give Afghanistan nonaligned status and, in due course of time, to turn it into a Switzerland of the East.
I hope that I have made a useful contribution. I hope that this debate will mark the beginning of a regular review of the situation. Above all, I hope that tonight's debate will give the Government the impetus to consider further humanitarian assistance for the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and the displaced Afghans in their homeland. I believe that the many areas that I have considered can best be achieved through the British charity Afghan Aid. As I have said, if the Western democracies offer no help to the victims of this cruel war, they will have abdicated the knowledge of what peace and freedom are really worth.

Viscount Cranborne: I think that the House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) for the way in which he has presented his case this evening. I shall not, of course, attempt to follow him in the comprehensive manner in which he attacked the extraordinarily complex and distressing question of Afghanistan, but the House will know that I have tended to interest myself in the question of Afghanistan for some time; in fact since Christmas 1979.
If the House will bear with me, I should like to underline one aspect to which my hon. Friend drew attention, in view of the kind remarks he made about the British charity, Afghan Aid, of which I have the honour to be the chairman. It is worth reminding ourselves that in 1979 the population of Afghanistan was somewhere between 15 million and 17 million souls, although no one knows the exact figure. In Iran there are now about 1,500,000 Afghan refugees, and in Pakistan there are just under 3 million refugees. Inside Afghanistan itself there are perhaps another 1 million or 2 million displaced people.
I have heard various hon. Gentlemen who grace the Opposition Benches with their presence from time to time—but who, rather surprisingly, in view of their regular and stated interest in the subject, seem to prefer their beds to the subject of their choice this evening—say that there is an extraordinary event in Afghansitan which has led to the bombardment and the displacement of people. As I understand their analysis, that event has something to do with the bandits of the Mujahidin.
I find it difficult to square that assertion with those of my many Afghan friends who have been driven from their


homes and who readily associate themselves with the Mujahidin. The refugees in Iran and Pakistan, the 1 million or 2 million people who have been displaced and the population that remains in spite of the danger of bombardment and reprisals, continue to help the very people who Labour Members constantly assure us are resisting the civilising influence of the Soviets.
It is curious that the majority of the mosques and schools which we are frequently told have been destroyed by these bandits have in fact been destroyed by aerial bombardment. I should like to know how the Mujahidin have managed so quickly to acquire an air force, which is embroidered, apparently, and no doubt by some extraordinary machiavellian scheme, with the stars of the Red air force and the models of the MIGs and SUs which do the bombing.
My hon. Friend has investigated the politics thoroughly. I should like to emphasise the humanitarian cause, which should excite the sympathy of the House perhaps more than any other. It has been detailed with chilling simplicity by the two Ermacora reports presented to the United Nations General Assembly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the remarkable and heartfelt job that he did in an Adjournment debate earlier this year when he drew our attention to the provisions of the first Ermacora report.
The humanitarian difficulty is a tragedy without parallel in the world, including Sudan and Ethiopia. Perhaps officially as many as half the refugees in the world today are Afghans. The bulk of those whom we can help directly in Pakistan are not too badly off. My hon. Friend drew attention to the funding difficulties which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has begun to experience this year, but by and large they are not too bad. The real need is inside, where people are threatened by starvation, and are bombed, maimed and wounded. Until recently we have been able to rely only on anecdotal evidence, which is easily debunked by journalists of a rather pro-Soviet inclination. Aid organisations interested in the position inside Afghanistan have tended increasingly to try to become a little more professional in the way in which they assess the difficulty.
Such is the scale of the problem that it is extremely difficult for someone, however good his intentions, to go swanning into a country, disburse large sums and hope that they will reach the right place. Such resources tend to disappear and are sometimes disbursed in areas where there is not such a great need. The House will know that starvation can occur even in a village where there are adequate food supplies. Those of us who have taken an interest in the tragedies of Ethiopia and Sudan, as my hon. Friend has done, have seen similar events there.
Professional assessment and research of a dispassionate and academic sort into the position inside Afghanistan has been needed. The organisation Afghan Aid, of which I have the honour to be chairman, has taken a leading role in that endeavour, and some years ago commissioned, I am glad to say with the help of the Overseas Development Administration, a report by Dr. Frances de Souza entitled.
The Threat of Famine in Afghanistan",
which pioneered for the international aid community the thought of techniques which enabled us to make the

professional assessments of need which are commonplace in areas such as Africa, which are more accessible to aid organisations.
As the professionalism of voluntary organisations grows, it becomes possible to build a picture of what is happening inside a country. It would be right to draw the attention of the House to Dr. de Souza's report and the famine indicators which she used in Afghanistan. These compared unfavourably with similar famine indicators used in Biafra in the 1960s.
The Government have been generous in their aid to refugees in Pakistan, and all of us are grateful for that. If the Minister will forgive me for saying so, he and the Minister for Overseas Development have not been slow to draw our attention to the Government's generosity on our behalf. However, the time has come for the Government to recognise where the real need lies.
That need has been recognised by other aid agencies working for other Governments. I have only just returned from Norway—a country which in per capita terms is rather better off than the United Kingdom, except in view of the recent decline in oil prices—which has been generous and is aware of the need to help inside Afghanistan, rather than where it is easy, which is outside.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate we will expect more than mere sympathetic words for those inside Afghanistan. He is aware, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, that the need exists. I delivered to him Dr. de Souza's report, which highlights that need. It is not good enough to give a little money and hope that that will be conscience money which will satisfy the House and the public.
The publicity and knowledge of what is happening in Afghanistan is growing. More journalists go there, better pictures are taken and therefore the world is becoming more conscious of what is happening.
People will ask what Governments and the United Nations agencies have done to help where the need exists. The answer is that they have done virtually nothing. It has been left to voluntary agencies, such as the one with which I work, to take the lead. It is obvious why Governments have done that. Government aid organisations like to deal from Government to Government. They do not like to send aid in on the quiet to countries like Afghanistan without the support and encouragement of the Government in the capital city.
The House is aware that, if the Government tried to do that, none of the aid would reach the people in need. It would either be stored in cardboard or be given to Russian soldiers. Therefore, if we are to do something more than merely wear our hearts on our sleeves, we must realise that extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he is able to give us an assurance that the Government, whom I am pleased to support, will do something practical and on a sufficient scale to remove the shame which I feel because they have failed, for reasons of their own convenience, to sent help where it is needed. There is plenty of evidence that other countries are thinking of doing this. I have repeatedly been told that over the past few months.
If my hon. Friend can give us that assurance, the lead which voluntary agencies have given, which should have been given by the Government, will not have been in vain. I urge him to take note of that above anything else,


because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East pointed out, the need is urgent and the situation is getting worse.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) in congratulating the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on his presentation of the tragedy that is Afghanistan today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East was able to draw on his experience of the refugee situation on the borders, particularly in Pakistan, and draw attention to the burden that has been imposed on Pakistan by the weight and sheer volume of the refugees who are there. He was right to draw attention to the victims of the war in Afghanistan, both the victims who perhaps are marginally better off in Pakistan and those who suffer in Afghanistan.
I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds, particularly to the request for appropriate mechanisms for channelling aid to those who suffer within the country. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dorset, South said about the need for a Government response on this. He would be the first to recognise that in the peculiar circumstances of Afghanistan, probably that response will have to be through non-governmental organisations such as his, because of the flexibility that they can bring. I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it has already done, and I trust that the Minister will respond positively to what has been said.
So much for the key and most important part of the debate—the victims and the humanitarian aspect of what is happening in the Afghanistan war. We know that on Christmas day 1979 the USSR sent an army of occupation into Afghanistan. The leader, Mr. Amin, was killed, and, within four or five days, the Soviets controlled the cities, the airports and all the key strategic points.
Six years later, there are an estimated 118,000 Soviet troops remaining in the country. In spite of the torture, the scorched earth policy, the mass of sophisticated weaponry—the helicopter gunships and so on—the Soviets have failed to subdue the Mujahidin within Afghanistan. Therefore, we must admire their resistance against all the odds. The civilian casualties have been high, there have been mass movements over the borders into Pakistan, and into neighbouring Iran.
However, in condemning the invasion as what the Soviets, in another context, would have called a dirty colonial war, we recognise that, although the invasion was clothed in ideological garb, the reality is consistent with long-standing Russian—not Soviet—policy in the area. They have not learnt the lessons that we learnt to our cost, particularly in the last century, in 1838–42 and 1878–80, which culminated, almost 80 years ago, in the Anglo-Russian convention of August 1907, when Russia recognised Afghanistan as outside its sphere of influence.
We also recognise that it is false to idealise the status quo ante, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East was in danger of so doing. The position prior to 1979 to Christmas day 1979 was not some typical western style democracy. The invasion was only the culimination of an increasing sovietisation of Afghanistan which had been built up during the 1970s. The human rights record prior to Christmas 1979 left much to be desired, and perhaps one does a disservice by too liberal a use of phrases like freedom fighters and clothing the Mujahidin, in the

language which President Reagan and his friends so frequently use, the black and white language which clearly is far from the reality that has developed during the 1970s.
The position was that Afghanistan had become increasingly dependent on the Soviet Union during the 1970s and to a large extent, because of super power realities at that time, there was acceptance by the United States Government of that time of Afghanistan being within the Soviet sphere of influence.
There is another point which I think was not sufficiently stressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East. I note his conclusion that the Soviets are there to stay, and his cynicism about any of the apparent peace feelers by the Soviet Union. There is, however, some real evidence that there has latterly been movement on the part of the Soviet Union in its Afghan policy. It may be because of a recognition of the costs which it has incurred and is incurring. In part, those costs are human—the 10,000 Soviet troops who have been killed there—but that in terms of the total military manpower available to the Soviet Union is probably tolerable. It may be because of the economic burden both militarily and in terms of civilian aid to Afghanistan which has had the effect, as he said, of sovietising and distorting Afghan development towards the Soviet Union in terms of infrastructure, education and training.
But perhaps the largest costs—and in this I fully subscribe to the views that the hon. Gentleman proposed—is in the political field. At the time of the invasion, it may have been one of the factors contributing to the breakdown of SALT II. Latterly, of course, it has been increasingly recognised by the non-aligned movement, particularly by the Islamic part of that movement, that here we have a clear example, the only example, of a direct Soviet invasion of a third world country. The Soviets were, and are, embarrassed at the United Nations and in other international fora by the clear concensus of those whom they seek to court against their actions. I personally at the Inter Parliamentary Union conference some 18 months, two years ago moved a relevant resolution condemning the Soviet action in Afghanistan, and had very wide suppport from a range of countries which are not known to be partial—ready—criticise the Soviet Union in other spheres.
Measured against those costs has been the prospect of a strategic gain within the area because of the instability of many of the countries. The balance perhaps now is being seen by the Soviets as increasingly moving against that invasion. Perhaps there is now a clearer recognition that there was a miscalculation, and the influence which they had over the Government prior to 1979 might have served their strategic and regional purposes in many ways better than the position—the anarchy, the mess—that they have now helped to create.
However, there are some signs that the Soviet Union is thinking again about its policy and wishes to consider how best to disengage itself from the quagmire and end the stalemate. The examples are well known to right hon. and hon. Members. I refer to the articles in Pravda in December 1985 and January 1986 which called inter alia for a positive dialogue among all Afghans. The political report by Mr. Gorbachev to the twenty-seventh party congress of the Communist party of the Soviet Union has not been cited, but it contains the famous reference to the "bleeding wound." In the relevant part of his speech Mr. Gorbachev said:


Naturally, like any other country, we attach considerable importance to the security of our frontiers, on land and at sea … We have no territorial claims on any of them. We threaten none of them … For instance, counter-revolution and imperialism have turned Afghanistan into a bleeding wound. The USSR supports that country's efforts to defend its sovereignty. We should like, in the nearest future, to withdraw the Soviet troops stationed in Afghanistan at the request of its government. Moreover, we have agreed with the Afghan side on the schedule for their phased withdrawal as soon as a political settlement is reached that ensures an actual cessation and dependably guarantees the non-resumption of foreign armed interference in the internal affairs of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
It is a matter of judgment whether, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East thinks, that is an attempt to buy time, a cover for the increased Sovietisation of Afghanistan, or whether it is a sign of the new Gorbachev era in seeking to disengage from a problem that has caused such embarrassment to the Soviet Union in world forums.
The United Nations package that was negotiated at Geneva has been mentioned. The components include non-interference and non-intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, the voluntary return of the refugees and international guarantees of neutrality in which the United States would play a part. The stumbling block, as ever, has been the withdrawal of the 118,000 or so Soviet troops who now occupy the country. There has been substantial United States military assistance to the Mujahidin. Again, with the cynicism of great power rivalry, this may be prompted by a wish to continue to embarrass the Soviet Union, as earlier the United States had shown signs of being prepared to acquiesce in the Brezhnev doctrine in respect of Afghanistan and to trade off Soviet disengagement from central America, which is in the backyard of the United States of America, for a reduction or for an elimination of United States assistance to the Mujahidin.
The lesson, in part, is not to romanticise. It is likely that whatever happens within Afghanistan for geographic and strategic reasons, the Soviet Union will always have a major interest in that country and that the outcome will probably be that Finland and Mongolia will act as a model. It would be unrealistic to expect there to be a wholly independent and wholly neutral Afghanistan, because of the geographical position that it enjoys—or perhaps does not enjoy.
The tragedy of Afghanistan, with all the human victims who have been so well described by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East must be seen in the East-West context. Hopes were raised by the autumn summit between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. At that time the President raised the question of the resolution of regional conflicts. The high moral ground which the United States seeks to hold in regard to Afghanistan is clearly put in question by its own activities in central America, particularly now that President Reagan is leaning so massively on Congress to agree to substantial financial assistance for the Contras, with no serious hope of overturning the Government within Nicaragua without direct United States military intervention.
As we consider Afghanistan in the East-West context, we must ask ourselves how serious the British Government and the United States Government are about the building of bridges to a second summit with the Soviet Union and, in our case, about the proposed visit of Mr. Shevardnadze. If we claim to be serious about improved relations, what

game are we playing because there are certain signs of late that both our own Government and that of President Reagan are conducting themselves in a contrary manner? For example, one can cite the totally negative response of the Prime Minister to the Gorbachev peace proposals and the United States decision now to insist on the reduction of personnel in the Soviet mission at the United Nations. Why should now be chosen for that decision as we reach the foothills leading to the summit?
I regret that on Tuesday of this week the Prime Minister received Mr. Abdul Haq, a representative of the Mujahidin. As we prepare for discussions with the Soviets, such a meeting was unhelpful, clumsy and lacking in restraint. As in so many other personal initiatives of the Prime Minister in foreign policy, as she elephants around the world—one thinks of the infamous speech in Hong Kong in September 1984 which almost torpedoed the negotiations with the Chinese Government—it is the Foreign Office which has to pick up the pieces.
Such initiatives at this time are bound to raise questions as to how serious we are about improving relations and firming up in advance of the Shevardnadze visit. If we wish to adopt a moral stance in respect of Afghanistan, that can so easily be compromised by selective action and by selective indignation on our part. If we wish to have a realistic stance in foreign affairs some of the recent initiatives of the Government must be questioned. They should be seen as provocative, shortsighted, one eyed, indulgent and counter productive.

1 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on having his debate selected tonight. We enjoyed listening to his erudite assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), who in the last six or seven years has given much of his time and effort to assist the people of that country.
I welcome the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to what are becoming regular debates on Afghanistan. I was sorry that he felt it necessary towards the end of his speech to indulge in some party political polemics. I thought during the earlier part of his remarks that we would have a more or less agreed position on the considerable problems that face the people of Afghanistan. While I appreciate the temptation that Labour Members have always to bring party politics into our debates, even at one o'clock in the morning, I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have resisted that temptation and taken a more measured attitude to the discussion.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East was not in the House on 20 December, when we last debated Afghanistan. It is appropriate that we should be discussing the subject now, because at this time the UN Secretary-General's special representative is engaged in a shuttle to try to bring the war, now in its seventh year, to an end. We support the efforts to find a solution based on successive UN resolutions. Those resolutions would allow self-determination for the Afghan people and enable Afghanistan again to take its place among the independent, non-aligned nations.
I note the optimistic assessment of the hon. Member for Swansea, East of the change in the attitude of the Soviet Government. I hope, on behalf of the Afghan people, that


his optimism is well placed, as it is essentially for the Soviet Government to decide whether it is possible to reach a settlement in Afghanistan.
When the House last debated Afghanistan, I quoted extensively from the report of the special rapporteur to the UN commission on human rights. His latest report was published on 17 February and it is available in the Library. To summarise the current position in Afghanistan, I can do no better than quote from that report's conclusions. The rapporteur said:
The Afghan Government is attempting to legitimise itself by trying to build up a democratic power base, but the number of refugees is still rising and has now reached nearly 5 million.
That is the number, not 2·4 million as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East suggested. The rapporteur added:
This is a key issue, as it affects the problem of self-determination and the question of a political solution. Without due representation of the refugees and respect for their wishes in the political discussions, no humanitarian solution to the problem can be found.
The kind of warfare has changed. Guerrilla warfare has reached the cities, whereas in outlying areas there is now direct confrontation. This influences the human rights situation in the country as a whole. Large parts of the country are out of the Government's control.
Where the Government has control, it uses all forms of anti-guerrilla activities to combat opponents or presumed opponents of the regime.
The next passage is particularly horrifying:
The practice of torture continues and more death sentences have been carried out without observing the safeguards set out in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a party.
The methods of warfare are contrary to humanitarian standards and the relevant instruments to which the States concerned are parties. The massacres of the civilian population, the use of anti-personnel mines, the looting, the methods of retaliation used and the disproportionately heavy bombardment of villages are, in any case, contrary to humanitarian law. The way in which both parties to the conflict take and treat prisoners is also contrary to humanitarian law. Brutalization of warfare can be imputed to both sides.
The civilian casualties in 1985 are estimated to be about 35,000.
The prison conditions of political prisons … are contrary to the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners.
The Government controls the larger villages and cities in most cases mainly during the daytime. There is therefore a de facto partition of the country. In the government-controlled areas, the educational system does not appear to respect the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. The governmental educational system, based as it is on ideological considerations, allegedly fails to give due regard to the rights enshrined in the Covenant.
As a result of the conflict, the Government is unable to guarantee social and economic rights to the entire population. However, the specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations, which could help improve the enjoyment of those rights for the whole population, are not permitted to work in the areas outside direct government control. Therefore only the efforts of non-governmental organizations can assist in meeting the economic, social and cultural needs of the population, which has no other assistance.
The Special Rapporteur has the impression that the only solution to the human rights situation in Afghanistan is the withdrawal of the foreign troops, because more than one third of the Afghan population is now outside the country and is unwilling to return while foreign troops control it, and because the will to resist foreign domination seems to be stronger than it was in the so-called Basmachi rebellions. Continuation of the military solution will, in the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, lead inevitably to a situation approaching genocide, which the traditions and culture of this noble people cannot permit.
The Government's tendency to seek broader support and democratic legitimization through a series of Jirgahs deserves recognition. It can, however, hardly be considered as a free exercise of the right of self-determination, which is enshrined in article 1 of the International Covenants on Human Rights. The

circumstances under which Jirgahs have been assembled and the present war situation make it difficult to accept the claim that they complied with the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur to hold a Loya-Jirgah.
I have quoted extensively because those are not the words of a Conservative Minister or of a partial observer, but of a United Nations rapporteur.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that this valuable report constitutes a good answer to those who try to dismiss the United Nations as some form of Communist conspiracy?

Mr. Eggar: Oh dear! It is very sad that the hon. Gentleman has to try to make cheap points such as that. Of course we recognise the important role played by the United Nations and its organisations. If the hon. Gentleman had been present on 20 December, he would have heard me draw extensively on the first report of the same rapporteur. I shall be happy to go on doing that. If the hon. Gentleman is good enough to attend subsequent debates, no doubt he will hear me draw on that rapporteur's later reports. I should like to pick up the conclusion that the only solution to the human rights situation in Afghanistan is the withdrawal of the foreign troops. I believe that the House will wholeheartedly agree. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will not jump up and deny that.
We should therefore note carefully the words of Mr. Gorbachev at the recent party congress on 25 February, which the hon. Gentleman quoted in full. I shall refer just to the first sentence. Mr. Gorbachev said:
Counter revolution and imperialism have turned Afghanistan into a bleeding wound.
It is nobody other than the Soviet Union who has turned Afghanistan into a bleeding wound. This cri de couer effectively confirms the conundrum the Russians are facing in trying to explain themselves to the outside world.
The sad litany I have recorded today offers, to my mind, devastating and conclusive proof that the Soviet Union intervened with massive military force, and has remained in occupation in the name of a tiny minority, who could never command the support of the Afghan people. The problem now is how that mistake can be acknowledged and the position repaired, so far as it can be.
It is not for me to recommend a definitive solution. But in their own institutions of tribal assemblies, or Jirgas, the people of Afghanistan have their own democratic machinery which, in its way, is just as representative as our own. Let the Soviet Union recognise that the regime it is imposing from the outside can never command the support of the people of Afghanistan. For stability, peace, and a humanitarian solution to the largest refugee problem in the world, there is no alternative to Soviet withdrawal and to allowing Afghanistan to exercise its right to self-determination. There is urgent work to do to rehabilitate this nation of 15 million, with its youth decimated by war, its economy in tatters and its administration disrupted. None of these appalling problems can be rectified until Soviet forces leave Afghanistan. If they do leave, that would represent no threat to Soviet security and interests, any more than that situation in 1979 represented a threat when they invaded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East referred at some length to his concern about the Soviet wish to sovietise Afghanistan. I agree with my hon Friend that there is evidence that the Soviet Union's leaders want


to achieve a transformation of Afghan society that would ensure permanent Soviet influence. They seek the creation of a stable client state with institutions modelled on their own Soviet institutions. But as we have heard, and as my hon. Friend said, the cost of such action is high, at home and in the international community. As we know, they will never bend the Afghan people to their will.
The Afghans themselves have shown what they think of the regime and its activities. The resistance have made it clear that their struggle started and will continue with or without help from outside, although one has to admit that the regime and its Soviet allies simply cannot blame counter-revolution, imperialism or foreign armed interference. The opposition comes from the Afghan people.
The dedicated and courageous opposition of the Afghan resistance to the almost overwhelming superiority of troops, weapons, technology and communications of the invading and occupying forces must command our respect and support. We shall continue to do what we can for the victims of the occupation, and I believe that the entire free world recognises the need to do so. We fully support the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to reach a negotiated solution, but I repeat that the key to the sad problem remains a withdrawal of the Soviet forces. Until that occurs, I have no doubt that Mr. Abdul Haq and his courageous colleagues will continue to fight to free their country and, indeed, will do so with or without help from outside. They deserve our admiration and support.
I note that 21 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 560, which expresses grave concern that Abdul Haq should have been received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is extraordinary that the Kabul 21, if we may call them that, who attacked the Afghan resistance leader, did not think fit to express any concern about the 118,000 occupation troops who are employing the full force of modern weaponry against the Afghan people. The plain fact is that the resistance is fighting a tremendous battle to repel a foreign invader. Hon. Members should express concern about that invader, not attack the resistance leaders.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister misses the point of the early-day motion. Of course we condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but by selectively seeing only one freedom fighter, the Prime Minister lays herself open to the criticism that she who says nothing about United States aid to the Contras and has blocked progress on sanctions against South Africa is prepared, in this one-eyed way, only to support the freedom fighters—as she terms them—in Afghanistan.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's loyalty to his colleagues who are far to the Left of him in the Labour party is an appealing aspect of his character, but he does not do himself justice.

Mr. Anderson: There is no one to the Left of me.

Mr. Eggar: That is a surprising revelation. The hon. Gentleman would have done better to have remained seated, because the House will have noted that neither he nor any of his Front Bench colleagues signed the early-day motion. That is a better reflection than his remarks tonight of the way in which the Labour Front Bench views the efforts of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and others. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East was happy to spend Christmas on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border. On the other side was the hon. Member for Leith, who is notable yet again for his absence from a debate on Afghanistan, and who is used to receiving attention and all-expenses paid trips from the puppet Kamal regime in Afghanistan.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, East and for Dorset, South asked about assistance to Afghan Aid and to other non-governmental organisations. I have taken very careful note of the support given for assistance to Afghan Aid by the hon. Member for Swansea, East. It goes without saying that we are only too well aware of the appalling conditions faced by many people still inside Afghanistan. As on previous occasions, I pay a warm tribute to the work done by Afghan Aid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South realistically expressed the difficulties experienced by Governments in giving assistance to organisations such as Afghan Aid. I am, sadly, unable tonight to give him the assurance that he asked of me, but I can assure him that I will be drawing his remarks, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East and those of the hon. Member for Swansea, East to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. We have taken very careful note of the strong expression that the House has allowed itself tonight.
To reinforce the message that I have already tried to give, there is no obstacle to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. There is no threat to Afghanistan or to the Soviet Union should this withdrawal of Soviet troops take place. If Mr. Gorbechev is really serious, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East thinks he may be, he should show that he is serious by withdrawing those 118,000 troops of the occupation force. More than well-turned phrases and artificial preconditions are needed. Withdrawal is essential. Afghanistan has suffered enough.

SDI Research

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If I am fast to the point of gabbling, it is partly because both the Minister and the Hansard reporters have had the text of what I am going to say since 2 o'clock, and partly because there are very important debates to come, not least on Leyland, which should receive time during the debate on the Consolidated Fund.
I ought to be candid with the House and say that, in raising the issue of SDI research in general, and the visit of Mr. Clarence Robinson in particular, I am passionately opposed to the militarisation of space. In his excellent pamphlet, Beyond Nuclear Deterrence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that
The only man in the world who believes that star wars might make nuclear weapons 'impotent and obsolete' is President Reagan himself.
In this matter, official Labour party policy has no more ardent supporter than me.
It will be within the recollection of Ministers that on 26 February, column 993, during the Royal Air Force debate I raised a series of relevant questions on SDI to which I have had no reply. I understand the vexation of Ministers having to be up half the night, but you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if Ministers do not reply by letter to Commons speeches made during the Services Estimates, the Members who make speeches have no option but to look back and back, until someone takes notice of what is said on the Floor of the House. I say to the Minister of State that the parliamentary process ought to take precedence over radio broadcasts from Brussels on "Any Questions?"
Could we establish the basis on which Mr. Clarence Robinson came to Europe? He was hardly a tourist. A tourist does not contact the SDI participation office requesting Ministry of Defence approval to visit British firms, such as Ferranti, British Aerospace and Plessey, in order to discuss work with the highest security classification. A tourist does not call the research director of GEC Marconi, contact its research director, to be told by the research director's office that he must have MoD clearance, then approach the MoD, to be told by Mr. Ken Hambledon, then head of the SDI participation office, that no such clearance would be given, and return to GEC Marconi in the hope of pursuing his original request.
May I say that I believe that Mr. Ken Hambledon was acting wholly properly, wholly in accord with the British national and scientific interest, and, I believe, probably, though it has not been published, within the terms of the memorandum of understanding? Can the House be told why this distinguished civil servant, Mr. Ken Hambledon, appointed specially by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to head the SDI participation office, who spent a year grappling, first, with the intricacies of international law, secondly, with delicate matters of diplomacy, and, thirdly, with the technology of SDI, has been moved sideways? Does his successor, Mr. Stan Orman—no personal criticism of him from me—have equal knowledge of what is self-evidently a mighty complex subject?
Has Mr. Ken Hambledon, an honourable man doing his job properly, been the fall-guy for the Americans, so that Ministers can turn round, after the Clarence Robinson fiasco, and say, "It was all a mistake—help yourselves

to British advanced technology, classify what you will, and we have removed any obstacle to your doing this, since that man Hambledon, who was awkward to Clarence Robinson, has been shifted elsewhere"?
What is the justification for taking up the time of the House? It is this. First, Paul Hopler, a technology specialist in the technology transfer unit of the Pentagon, within the research and engineering division of the Pentagon, is engaged in a study of SDI technologies. Secondly, Hopler commissioned two companies, the Institute for Defence Analysis, and BK Dynamics, to carry out a survey of NATO countries, to discover SDI-related technologies, which would have to be brought into the study, and which might have to be classified. Thirdly, BK Dynamics has admitted that Mr. Robinson was recently in Europe to elicit information from companies, including about 10 in Britain, that would subsequently be fed into the study for Mr. Hopler.
In answer to one of my questions, the Minister of State replied that either United States law or United Kingdom law would apply, depending on the contractual circumstances. I asked the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, when he went to Washington, he argued that the writ of United States law would not run in the United Kingdom. Has that changed with the memorandum of understanding, or, indeed, the addendum between Professor Richard Norman and General Abrahamson?
Let me dwell on the money. In my previous speech I referred to John Pike of the American Federation of Scientists, Official Report, column 994, 26 February, on the question of American financing. He estimates that Europe might receive some $300 million. I understand from the journalist, Mr. Paul Walton, that, although $5 billion has already been placed in America for SDI contracts, only $1·2 million, not billion—I repeat million—have been placed in Britain with Heriot Watt, where some of my constituents work; Ferranti in two areas, one adjacent to my constituency; Marconi Projects, in two cases; Plessey, and English Electric Valve. A little other money may have gone to Rutherford Appleton or Culham. An estimate has been given that Britain would be lucky to win one tenth of 1 per cent.—0·1 per cent. by 1990 of the $26 billion available. Do the Ministry of Defence dispute those figures?
Are we British really going to allow ourselves to have our advanced technology milked by the Americans in the hope of comparatively paltry sums? It is the old, old story of European, and particularly British, brains, having the ideas, doing the research, and finding that the Americans do the development, and reap the rewards.
Bluntly, the House will have to be persuaded that Mr. Clarence Robinson was not on an artful, thieving mission. I have not met Mr. Clarence Robinson, and for all I know he may be a very serious and decent man, ex-journalist on Aviation Week, successful business man, trusted by the American Department of Defence, for whom he does most of his work. Is it conceivable that the Ministry of Defence did not know about his visit; and would Ministers like to correct or amend their answers to Tuesday's questions?
Can we really suppose that the Ministry of Defence had no knowledge at all of the work of Mr. Paul Hopler, with whom Clarence Robinson has a working relationship? After all, in Jane's Defence Weekly, on 15 February, Mr. Hopler's intentions were outlined in full. Subsequently, on


17 February, the anxious directors of our leading high technology companies were demanding an explanation of Mr. Hopler's intentions from General Abrahamson, at a briefing of the Conservative Bow Group on SDI. General Abrahamson promised to reply before leaving Britain. Has he yet done so? Not to my knowledge.
I understand that Paul Hopler certainly thought that the visit of Clarence Robinson had the full approval of the British Cabinet. Is he correct? Were the Americans deluding themselves about British Cabinet agreement, or did the memorandum of understanding imply that a visit, such as Robinson's, was a matter of course? Have the Government been entirely candid about their involvement? Ministers should be careful in answering this question, which I shall repeat endlessly until it is answered, because I shall be sending a copy of this debate to Mr. Hopler and Mr. Robinson. It would be best to be candid now.
If the Government truly knew nothing about the visit attempted by Mr. Clarence Robinson, are Ministers really suggesting that Mr. Robinson was discovered trying to undertake a covert tour of highly classified British companies, universities and research establishments? The House of Commons was told that Britain would participate in SDI research as another example of the special understanding with the United States, reinforced by the only memorandum of understanding, with its recent addendum, so far made by the American Government. Perhaps the House should be offering advice to the West Germans, and Herr Genscher, that the memorandum of understanding, is more like a memorandum of misunderstanding.
Present misunderstandings have not been dispelled by different explanations, originating from officials of the American Government as the true reason for the visit by Mr. Robinson. I have already referred to the explanation by Hopler that necessary Cabinet level approval had already been given for a visit by Mr. Clarence Robinson to discuss classified research in British firms. However, Mr. Clarence Robinson told Mr. Ken Hambledon that he was "an advanced scout" for the award of SDI contracts specifically set aside for United Kingdom firms. Do Ministers accept that explanation? The SDI office in Washington does not. Major Rigby, chief spokesman for the American SD organisation office, provided this statement:
Mr. Robinson is a Defence Consultant with contracts with various Defence Departments. Mr. Robinson was in Europe conducting an unclassified study for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Research and Engineering. He was not working for the SDI office.
That is the Americans, not me, speaking.
The SDI office dispelled any idea that Mr. Clarence Robinson was offering research contracts to British companies on its behalf. Surprisingly, he was here to consider unclassified research. Perhaps the House should be told why Mr. Robinson asked to see classified research. It is no good British Ministers passing by on the other side of the road from Mr. Robinson, because Mr. Robinson, in the words of the SDI office in Washington, was working for the Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Defence for Research and Engineering, who is Dr. Hicks, the boss of Paul Hopler. Ministers and their Departments must have known something about the American initiative. What? Do they not read Jane's Defence Weekly?
Are we to understand that last Tuesday the Secretary of State for Defence authorised a request to the Pentagon, via the British embassy in Washington, for a full explanation of what Mr. Clarence Robinson was up to? Is the Minister in a position to let the House have a response? If so, could we have it? If not, is it not an astonishing snub to Her Majesty's Government? It raises the whole critical question of what kind of relationship we have with the Americans on this issue.
The Minister will have studied the important article in Saturday's Financial Times by Peter Marsh. I repeat the questions put by Mr. Marsh in that article. Why were Ministry of Defence officials kept in the dark about the true purpose behind Mr. Robinson's tour? Is Mr. Robinson due to return? If they have any difficulty about eliciting information from the Americans, why do not the Ministry of Defence officials phone Mr. Robinson in Washington? I can give them the phone number. His work telephone number is 0101 703 522 8155 and his home telephone is 0101 703 255 9852.
Does the memorandum of understanding allow for such visits? Why on earth cannot the memorandum of understanding be published, since publication might put at rest all the rumours? The notion that it cannot be published on grounds of commercial confidentiality does seem absurd. Why, in Heaven's name, cannot the memorandum of understanding by published?
One of the issues encapsulated in this episode is the way in which the Pentagon is seeking to arrange mechanisms for the classification of militarily sensitive SDI-related technologies on which British firms are working. Those classification procedures could, if implemented, either by the decree of the United States Government by themselves or by the COCOM organisation in Paris impede the ability of British firms to commercialise their technologies in the world market place.
I have reason to believe that Mr. Hopler has already gathered, on the Pentagon's behalf, a great deal of sensitive information about British technology. Is this a healthy relationship? I am not anti-American, but I express doubts about the Pentagon's motives.
As a former Labour science spokesman, sacked over the Falklands, with a sustained interest in British science, I am concerned about something else. We have seen the development of United States controls over the commercial exploitation of science and technology and even products which we now take for granted—for example, computers. This Robinson affair demonstrates that there is a danger, if such controls are deployed, with reference to more fundamental science and technology, as represented by the SDI. Having extended control over products emanating from British and European science, on the grounds that they should not fall into the hands of the Soviets, the Pentagon now apparently wishes to control research and development, simply because it is defined as SDI-related.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and to the Under-Secretary of State, for staying up until this hour. I should like answers to some of my questions.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: This is not the first time that, early in the morning, I have followed the hon.
Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in an Adjourment debate. This debate is of as much consequence and importance as the previous one.
This is not the first time that such an incident has occurred in Britain. More than a year ago I tabled a parliamentary question which showed that Mr. Jack Lacey on behalf of the American Government had visited a certain British firm—Plasma Technology in Avon—without the British Government's permission or knowledge, to seek information about attempts by the United States Government to impose upon British firms United States law, which does not operate in Britain.
The Attorney-General has already commented to me in general terms about this example of extra-territorial application of United States law. He said that it was a direct infringement of British sovereignty and was illegal under international law. That happened more than a year ago. As far as I know, since then the Government have taken no steps to ensure that what happens in Britain is subject only to British law and to protect British firms from actions which the Government acknowledge are an infringement of our sovereignty and are illegal under international law.
I am concerned about the fact that we are beginning to see direct attempts by the American Government to impose restrictions, not only on the activities of British firms which obey British law, but on the knowledge in people's heads. This is happening in the United States. The Pentagon is attempting to restrict the free movement of certain American citizens because they happen to have information in their heads.
It would be a grave infringement of our liberties, our sovereignty and the laws that govern our activities and behaviour if we allowed similiar controls to be imposed on our people. I hope that the Government will concede that this is yet another example—a serious and damaging one—of activities taking place on behalf of the United States Government which are not only a direct infringement of our laws but which act as a serious inhibition on the commercial activities of firms that operate in Britain. Unless the Government are prepared to take serious action and to stand up to the United States they will diminish not only the rights of British subjects but the capacity of much of our high technology industry to trade effectively.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We are again indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for an opportunity to discuss this most important of issues. Normally when we have discussed the SDI initiative it has been on a question of general military policy, strategic policies and foreign policy implications, and we have not always had the opportunity to examine the matter in terms of its straight defence industry implications and its implications for British industry generally.
The reason for this debate lies in the two strange replies that my hon. Friend received from the Secretary of State for Defence on Tuesday. When my hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he was
consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarence Robinson, and for what reasons did he go back to the United States without having talked to British industry?
the Secretary of State replied:
I was not consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarence Robinson. It was therefore entirely up to him whether he came or went."—[Official Report, 11 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 793.]
Six columns later my hon. Friend returned to this point and asked the Secretary of State:
Could we be clear? Is the Secretary of State saying that he heard nothing from the British embassy in Washington about the visit of Mr. Clarence Robinson and that Mr. Clarence Robinson never asked for security clearance?
Mr. Speaker intervened to say:
Order. Has this anything to do with NATO?
Despite the protection given by Mr. Speaker on that occasion, the Secretary of State for Defence found it necessary to come back and say:
I can confirm that we heard nothing of the visit of that gentleman, but we have asked for a report about it."—[Official Report, 11 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 799.]
The question then arises, where and when was the report asked for? Did it arise between columns 793 and 799, or had it already been asked for? If that was the case, why was my hon. Friend not informed about that when he first posed his question to the Secretary of State? If we had had that information, we would have had a better reason for knowing why the Secretary of State and the Government have been so diffident about the whole of this SDI agreement and memorandum of understanding with the United States.
It is strange that the original reply should have been by the Secretary of State asserting that he knew little or nothing and that nothing was asked for and nothing had to be given. Somebody in the Secretary of State's Department must have known that Mr. Clarence Robinson was sniffing around British industry, that he was going to some of the most highly secretive and classified institutions in the land and that he had been looking for a security clearance and that it had been turned down.
The Department must have known, as my hon. Friend has said, of the role that Mr. Robinson had played in the past for BK Dynamics in its search for information about European technologies relevant to SDI. That role must have been known to the Department and to the Embassy in Washington.
The Secretary of State must have known of the transfer sideways of Mr. Ken Hambledon and whether that was or was not the direct result of the Civil Servant refusing to give the necessary security clearance to Mr. Robinson. We ought to know about these matters from the Secretary of State or from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who is to reply. I would have thought that on an issue like this, we should have had the Minister responsible for Defence procurement replying on these matters and I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow on that point.
On Tuesday the Secretary of State gave the impression that he did not know what was going on in his own Department. We are concerned with something rather more important than the antics and knowledge of the Secretary of State. We are concerned with the control of fundamental research and technology in the United Kingdom and whether that will be swallowed up and lost in the United State's SDI programme. My hon. Friend's question and the questions which he listed so succinctly in the RAF debate, were of a fundamental nature which needed to be answered and which did not, in any way, seek a degree of commercial confidentiality. My hon. Friend did not want to know what the percentage was that Plessey was going to receive and he did not even want to know the


significance of particular orders; rather, he wanted to know—and I believe that the country and the House want to know—what was conceded in the memorandum of understanding? What did we understand by it? The Government would like us to believe that British science and technology, like the National Health Service, is safe in their hands, but we have seen what has happened to the NHS, and we are likely to see British research facilities, knowledge and technology disappearing, as fast as hospitals are being closed.
We want to know not the commercial secrets but the understanding on which we entered into negotiations with the United States and agreed to take part in the SDI programme. We have made, not a treaty, but a memorandum of understanding with the United States. It has not been agreed by the foreign affairs committee of the Senate, and so the Senate is not bound by it. Through a variety of ways, the United States can get our knowlege, science and technology, and change the rules and move the goalposts as often and quickly as it wishes for what to it are proper reasons. I do not deny the right of Americans to look after their national interest, but occasionally our Government should look after ours as well.
The United States Government's history is of restriction followed by restriction on the ability of their allies to develop, and sell to third parties secrets, products and ideas, if they have the remotest defence implications. Presidential and COCOM powers have been extended. We have seen how contracts are drawn up, and the limitations placed on people who attend intellectual seminars in the United States. They are all based on the idea of restricting knowledge outside the United States. However, that knowledge goes into the hands of United States' industry to give it an edge, to enable it to develop ideas from outside, and to delay their application and development outside the United States while they are developed inside.
My hon. Friend asked whether British or American law applied to the contracts, and what the intellectual property rights were. While in the letter of the law that is important, it is not terribly important. It is more a question of the spirit in which the matters are entered into, and we are worried about the lack of spirit. It is no consolation to say that if an idea comes from a British firm we shall maintain our intellectual property rights. That is equivalent to a man who owns the freehold of land which has a 999 year lease. That is what is likely to happen in this case.
The Minister will have read the important article by Mr. Paul Walton in Jane's Defence Weekly last month which sought to examine the nature of the memorandum of understanding, and the question of the United States extraterritorial claims. We have witnessed their development, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) tried to compare the activities of Mr. Lacey with those of Mr. Robinson. I am not sure whether one can do that.
Mr. Walton argued that the memorandum of understanding was drawn up because of a desire by the British Government, especially the Prime Minister, to get away from the extra-territorial arguments, objections and fights, and to establish matters on a new, better level. We could in fact work together on these matters. If we look at the matter in the way the Prime Minister, the United States, the Pentagon and Mr. Paul Hopler have looked at it we see that there is a different attitude.
Mr. Walton in the article published in Jane's Defence Weekly argues that the extra territorial debate has taken a new turn towards fundamental research and development.
The Pentagon is now studying any technology, in any country, which might have some military application for SDI research. The Star Wars programme is based on fundamental technologies not yet out of the laboratory … the Americans wnat the right to classify any technology, and any product, in the field of electronics, computing and telecommunications,".
That means that the whole of the role of information technology and the future that has for industry in general, not only in defence matters but more fundamentally in civil matters will be at the mercy of this Committee and the way that it examines these things. Mr. Hopler's Committee is searching for relevant technologies in NATO countries outside the United States and two countries in particular are under the microscope—the United Kingdom and West Germany.
Mr. Hopler told his British counterparts tht he wished to study SDI related technologies—it has been quoted in Jane and has not been denied either by Mr. Hopler or the British Government. He said:
We're not necessarily going to go into all companies in all countries although I am sure we will in the case of Great Britain".
That is a nice position to be in. The man responsible in the Pentagon for the Department of Defence, the guardian of the Military Critical Technologies List, says that he will go in to every company in the United Kingdom. That is overstepping extra territoriality in terms of SDI.
The article continues:
Mr. Hopler was working closely with the SDI office, but he has been advised to distance his study from their work. The politicians—
I presume that that is the Government—
do not want to link SDI and the Co-ordinating Committee on Multi Lateral Export Control (CoCom). It is thought that this combination would be dynamite. One seeks European co-operation in R and D, the other denies them easy access to advanced technologies.
That is indeed a contradiction and it is indeed dynamite. I find the conclusion of Mr. Walton's article the most frightening:
Eventually, Pentagon staff close to the MCTL process feel, Britain will have no choice but to take part.
that is, in SDI and to accept extra territoriality.
The memo which committed Margaret Thatcher to Star Wars also implied that full security be maintained when, and if, SDI contracts were placed. Several contracts have now been placed by SDI research, Pentagon officials argue, so the UK is obliged to open up for inspection Fait accompli. Whether the firms which Hopler wants his teams to visit will feel similarly obliged is another matter. In the long term, the process of classifying work not yet out of the laboratory will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on computing, electronics and telecommunications. More precisely, it will be Information Technology outside the USA and beyond the military industrial complex which will suffer most. Without the free flow of information and people, and the ability to trade in state of the art products, such industries will always play second fiddle to the USA.
If they are playing second fiddle to the United States, it means that our defence industries are playing second fiddle to the United States. It means that on those occasions when we may wish, for our own sake and in our interests to defend and develop our own defence potential we will be able to do so only if we have the consent of the Military Critical Technologies List. We have to ensure that we have the ability to pull back our technology and use it without the consent of the United States.
The real fear of the country is not about the strategy, or SDI itself, but about the future of British industry and our ability to invent, develop and innovate for our


industrial well-being and the defence of our country, which has been put at risk by the Government's actions. That is why we are particularly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for his tenacity in giving us the opportunity to debate this subject this evening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): The House recently had the opportunity to debate the strategic defence initiative, on 19 February, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a very full exposition of the British Government's policy towards the United States strategic defence initiative and towards participation in the United States research programme for SDI. That was only three weeks ago. Within a week, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought to re-open the debate in the course of the debate on the Royal Air Force, and tonight he has returned to the subject once again. One cannot—I say this in the nicest way—but marvel at the hon. Member's tenacity in this as in other matters. He will hardly expect me tonight to elaborate further on the Government's position, so recently and fully set out before the House.
The Government's approach to the strategic defence initiative continues to be guided by the four points which were agreed by the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at their meeting at Camp David in December 1984. The points are; first, the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority but to maintain balance, taking account of Soviet development. Secondly, SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Thirdly, the aim is to enhance, and not to undermine, deterrents. Lastly, East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
Within the framework of these four points, including our clear commitment to strategic stability and to arms control, the British Government have viewed the question of participation in SDI research. In March last year, the United States Secretary for Defence wrote to his opposite numbers in NATO and Australia, Israel and Japan inviting each country to participate in the United States programme of SDI research. The Government could, of course, have responded by saying simply that the British companies and research institutions were free, as always, to seek involvement in the United States research programme through their own individual efforts. It would have been possible, in other words, for the Government to refrain from making any positive response to the United States invitation, but this would have been to ignore the long and successful history of Anglo-American defence co-operation to under-estimate the significance of SDI. Research for the development of technology generally; and to turn a blind eye to the problems facing any offshore supplier to the United States, in circumstances when it is the little as well as the large who have something to offer.

Mr. Dalyell: I read in an article by an arms control reporter on 25 December 1985:
The US was contemplating asking Brazil and Argentina to join the SDI research programme.
The reference is cited as El Economista, as stated on Moscow domestic radio, on 15 December 1985. It is true

—perhaps the Minister can answer this in writing—that the Americans asked both Brazil and Argentina, and should they be added to the list?

Mr. Lee: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman, as always. I cannot comment on what he said, but I shall look into it.
The Government support the SDI research programme, for all the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on 19 February. We believe that it is right that British participation in an endeavour of such magnitude and significance as this should take place within the framework of an intergovernmental agreement. The negotiations leading up to signature of the memorandum of understanding on 6 December last were constructive, purposeful, and fruitful. A sound framework has been established for British participation in the SDI research programme, on a scale commensurate with what this country's research base has to offer such an advanced programme, and on terms and conditions which fully protect British commercial interests.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow behaves as though SDI is a new concept. The technologies now gathered under the generic title of SDI have been the subject of research and development in the East and the West for close to 20 years.
Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that a decision was taken by the then Labour Government, and wisely so in my opinion, to develop Chevaline. At that time we relied on Polaris as a strategic deterrent and the Russians embarked on the establishment of an ABM defence—the first deployed strategic defence initiative—which would have rendered Polaris ineffective. Wisely, we took the decision to design a system capable of outwitting their defence, and that system remains our effective deterrent today.
There is nothing new in the laser technology, there is nothing new in advanced computing, there is nothing new in electromagnetic guns, there is nothing new in terminal defence missiles. What is the bogey of SDI that so worries Opposition Members?
The hon. Gentleman referred in somewhat disparaging tones to the contracts that have been signed, in an attempt—illogical in my view—to suggest that there would in fact be no very substantial United Kingdom participation in SDI research. If he were right, I would expect not scorn but expressions of delight, and that is precisely what he seems to be saying he wants. But it simply does not follow.
My hon. Friend told the House on Tuesday of this week that seven contracts had so far been announced. These were, of course, the result of negotiations pre-dating the signature in December 1985 of the intergovernmental memorandum of understanding and the approval only last month of the more detailed supporting administrative arrangements. The fruits of these agreements remain to be seen. I am in no doubt that they open up the prospect for extensive and rewarding—rewarding for the United Kingdom in general as well as beneficial to the Alliance—research work. I believe that British participation can and will be significant, but it is not just the volume that counts; it is the opportunity to participate in the research at the most advanced levels using funds from the United Kingdom Government. The hon. Gentleman may believe what he will, but I know that British scientists of our companies, universities and our own MOD research


establishments who can take advantage of this kind of exciting opportunity will have far more to offer to the actual level of the technological capability of tomorrow than those left on the sidelines.
I am not prepared in the early hours of the morning to speculate about contracts that may now be under negotiation, or in prospect. It is, anyway, the commercial responsibility of the firms concerned, but they know that they have the full support of my Department and the SDI participation office to get business, to get business in the right technical areas, and to get business on the right terms.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow complained at the start of this debate that he had received no reply to the points he raised in the debate on the Royal Air Force on 26 February. He did, indeed, raise a considerable number of points on SDI research during that debate.
However, I would genuinely like to impress upon the hon. Member that, far from wishing to appear evasive on issues related to British participation in SDI research, the Government are intent on being as open as possible in order that such issues, and Government support for them, are fully understood. From the numerous questions that he raised during the Royal Air Force debate and, indeed, on other recent occasions, which bear upon the various aspects of SDI, it is clear that he feels very unhappy about the Government's approach.
In view of this concern, I have been considering an involved and full reply. Obviously this takes some time. I hope to be in a position to give the hon. Member a very full and considered reply early next week, however, in view of the hon. Member's insistence, I will respond to some of his points this morning.
One issue on which concern has again been expressed is that of the confidentiality of the agreement reached with the United States Government on British participation in SDI research. The Government well understand why there should be concern on issues such as this. But I put it to the House, as did the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence in December, that the United States Government could hardly be expected to publish the conclusions of a negotiation with one allied Government when discussions were taking place or were in prospect on the self-same issues with one or more of the other allies. There is nothing unusual or sinister about this as a means of conducting international business.

Mr. McNamara: Will there be publication when the other negotiations are completed?

Mr. Lee: We shall consider that.
Concern has been expressed in the debate, and by no means for the first time, about the possibility that controls on the exploitation of technology generated by SDI research carried out in the United Kingdom may have been agreed which have an inhibiting effect on the exploitation of this technology. Questions in this general field of technology transfer controls were among the many questions given very careful thought in the course of the negotiations on the memorandum of understanding. The need for such careful consideration arose, as much as anything, from the fact that the SDI research programme is first and foremost a defence research programme and,

as such, directed towards generating results with potential defence applications. Labour Members have made much of the United States approach towards control of sensitive military technology. But let it not be forgotten that we too in this country have a duty to ensure that classified information of military value does not fall into the wrong hands. It is perfectly proper, and quite normal, that there should be controls on the use of sensitive defence information. SDI research results falling into this category will accordingly be subject to the appropriate control procedures. There is, however, one characteristic of the SDI research programme which may be regarded as untypical of defence research programmes. Much of the research work is of a fundamental kind and, indeed, there is a special part of the programme under the control of the Innovative Science and Technology Office—the United States SDI office in Washington—which is concerned solely with the fundamental end of the research spectrum. It is in this area particularly where it will remain important to ensure that research results are available in unclassified form, save in the most exceptional cases.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred at considerable length to the reported plans of Mr. Clarence Robinson to visit a number of British firms.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that there will have to be appropriate controls over security technology, but is it not more appropriate that the controls within Britain should be British controls and is it not wholly inappropriate that another nation, whether or not an ally, should seek to impose its laws upon what happens in Britain? Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that the memorandum of understanding contains no provision that would allow any law other than British law to operate in respect of British firms and, specifically, that the memorandum of understanding contains no requirement that British companies working on SDI contracts should obey extraterritorially the Export Administration Act of the United States?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is a very skilful parliamentary operator, but I am not prepared to be drawn on the details of the memorandum of understanding.
There is one point that has been raised in this context—the Clarence Robinson visit—on which it is important that there should be no further misunderstanding. If Mr. Robinson or anyone else is employed as a consultant or agent of an overseas Government and wishes to visit the United Kingdom to discuss equipments and technologies with United Kingdom firms, we would certainly expect to be consulted in advance. For a visit involving access to classified information, a formal clearance is required and requests for clearance are handled by the Ministry of Defence directorate of security. No such request was made on Mr. Robinson's behalf by the United States authorities. It would have been a matter of considerable concern if a visit involving access to classified material had taken place without the necessary authorisation. But—I ask the House to note this carefully—no such visit took place.
Early on in his speech, the hon. Member for Linlithgow described an approach to Mr. Hambleton of the Ministry of Defence that was made by Mr. Robinson. The approach was made by telephone from Paris, and the hon. Member's account is substantially correct on this point. He also asked


whether the visit had the approval of Cabinet. It did not, as my earlier remarks implied; nor is there any provision in the memorandum of understanding on participation in SDI research waiving the requirement for visit clearances, where appropriate.
We have consulted the United States Government about the role of Mr. Robinson and the background and purpose of his visit. Mr. Robinson is not an official of the United States Government but he is employed by them from time to time as a consultant. In this capacity, he was acting, I understand, for the United States Government in relation to a general study of advanced fields of technology in Europe with the object of identifying potentially fruitful areas for greater co-operation. Although originally the study was concerned solely with technologies relevant to the SDI programme, it was subsequently extended to cover high technology in general.
I hope that this helps to clarify the hon. Member's mind as to the background. It has been a puzzling episode, which need have caused no difficulty had it been handled with greater care.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow saw fit on Tuesday, after Questions, to mention an official's name across the Floor of the House. I rather regret that he chose to do so on that occasion, and the terms that he used, but I am glad tonight to have the opportunity to repudiate without qualification the suggestion that Mr. Ken Hambledon may have been moved from his former post as head of the SDI participation office for any reason of the kind put forward by the hon. Member. Mr. Hambledon played a leading part over many months in the process of setting up the intergovernmental arrangements, and brought the participation office into existence. He worked exceptionally hard and did a first-class job. He has been re-appointed to the post which he took up early in 1985, shortly before work on SDI participation began to loom large. It is a challenging appointment, and I am sure that we all, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow, wish him well in it. His successor in the participation office, Dr. Orman, has had a long and distinguished career as a Government scientist, including a period from 1982 to 1984 in the British embassy, Washington. He, too, is extremely well qualified for this task.
I should like to conclude by pointing out that these are, of course, early days in our involvement in the programme, but a sound start has been made. We are not talking here of a sell-out for British science—quite the reverse. We believe that the formal agreement we have reached places satisfactory safeguards on the results of work carried out by British companies and universities. Moreover, by securing such arrangements for British involvement we are confident that our best scientific brains will be content to pursue their research activity in the United Kingdom instead of moving to the United States, which might well have been the case in the absence of the bilateral arrangements we have secured.

Self-Employed

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss policies for the self-employed. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for agreeing so readily to take part in the debate. I note that he among the ministerial team volunteered to do this duty in the House, quite oblivious to any question of rank. I am grateful also for his continuing interest in and unflagging hard work for the self-employed and small businesses since his appointment.
One might think that this is rather a late hour to raise the question of self-employment, but I do not think that it is entirely inappropriate. The self-employed do not work regular hours—not for them a nine-to-five existence. They work very irregular and long hours, especially in their early years of self-employment. I know that because I was myself self-employed from November 1981 to June 1983. We owe it to the self-employed in the economy to devote a little time to their affairs and to the problems they face.
Who are the self-employed? There are now some 2·6 million, a substantial increase on 1979 when there were 1·8 million. I believe that one in 10 of the working population are now self-employed and that in the northeast nearly 90,000 are now self-employed. So we are speaking of a sizeable and very active part of the work force, an entrepreneurial corps at the heart of the British economy.
The self-employed are important in another sense, in that they are a growing part of the economy. Indeed, we might describe them as one of Britain's best industries. Small businesses have created between 800,000 and 1 million new jobs since 1979. Of that figure, one fifth or one quarter have come from new businesses, and the Forum of Private Business has estimated that there are 1 million more jobs to come. Its survey, published last month, shows that each small business aims to take on at least one more employee in the next few months. A Legal and General survey last autumn showed that one self-employed person in three hopes to take on an extra person within the next two years. If we think about that, it means 750,000 new jobs in the economy over the next two years. In the north-east, that is 25,000 potential new jobs. That is a huge potential of new employment. It is a massive reservoir of talent and skills seeking new opportunities. The House and the Government should say to the self-employed, "Go for it, help to make it happen."
Small businesses have thrived under this Government as they have never thrived before. I shall concentrate not on small businesses with perhaps five or 10 employees but on the self-employed who have just got started. It is curious that in Britain, unlike elsewhere, there is no clear definition of self-employment. Nothing in the statute describes a self-employed person. Instead, we leave it to the Revenue to determine employment status.
In other words, self-employment is a privilege subject to the inevitably arbitrary discretion of Revenue officials. We must change that privilege into a right. Anybody who wants to be treated as self-employed should be permitted legally to be so treated after completing a short and simple form of declaration. That would avoid people having to plead with the Inland Revenue for several years for the status of self-employment. There can be many


ramifications if the decision goes against the person applying for that status. For example, he may in the meantime have been paying fees on a contract basis.
Thus, it should be a right to be self-employed for those who consider that they have that status, with a right of appeal perhaps the other way round—with the Inland Revenue Commissioners appealing against that right if they believe that the income of a self-employed person derives principally from the same source.
I urge the Minister to try to persuade the Treasury and the Inland Revenue that self-employment should not be considered simply as a loss of revenue but as an entrepreneurial activity that contributes to the growth of the economy and as a right that those who go it alone deserve.
We must also consider the taxation status of the self-employed. They pay—I think too much—income tax. It should be lowered quickly. They also pay too much in capital gains tax, and I hope that the review of that tax will include provision for the self-employed. They are also subject to VAT and, as self-employed people, they have the relatively low ceiling of £20,000. Many have argued in recent months that that ceiling should be lifted for small businesses and the self-employed to about 100,000. More important, qualification for VAT should be made an option for the self-employed. It would benefit some to be able to claim back VAT, while others would lose. People should have the option to decide whether to be part of the VAT system until they reach a turnover of £100,000.
I hope that my hon. Friend will persuade his colleagues to make that a theme of our forthcoming presidency of the Council of Ministers. It is up to his Department to persuade the Treasury that we are talking not of revenue lost but of entrepreneurial activity which is a gain to the economy. The Revenue will be aware of how much of such activity is in the black economy from the tax point of view. We must make that black economy legitimate. We must nationalise it. We must bring the world of Arthur Daly into the Chancellor's system and make those nice little earners the legitimate right of everyone who decides to be self-employed.
Planning is the bugbear of the economy. It is far too complicated and difficult and it takes far too long. I welcome the Housing and Planning Bill, which would simplify planning procedures and establish special planning zones. I am aware that the critics regard them as yet more planning areas to administer. Perhaps we have to go further and to reverse the burden of proof in planning—to put the onus not on the proposer of change who wants to start a business in a garage, shed or living room, but on the objector if the business will not cause noise or nuisance so that those who want to get into business, especially in residential areas, can get on and do so. There is no better proof of the need for that than the present system and the delays that are built into it. I understand that approval for a light commercial development takes some six weeks in Belgium, some five weeks in the United States, some four weeks in Canada and an average of 32 weeks in Britain from the submission of the application to the granting of planning approval.
We should consider the dead hand of the state—the legislative and administrative requirements that successive Governments have piled on business. One of the criticisms of the "Burdens on Business" survey was that business

complains about taxation rather than such administrative burdens, but the businesses that were discouraged and did not start up are not around to be surveyed. They are the self-employed who did not go it alone. Such people and businesses are not counted.
The "Burdens on Business" consultative document and the subsequent White Paper concentrated on small businesses. I would like a fresh survey on the burdens on the self-employed, or those hoping to be self-employed, to find out what discourages people, what the disincentives are and how we can make it easier for people who want to go it alone to take the plunge and risk loss of security, and possibly prospects, for their families. I would like to see a survey of the burdens of the self-employed, as well as burdens on small businesses.
In the more general area of education, self-employment is rarely suggested in our schools as a career option. It is often trailed as a last resort. We need to break down increasingly the employee mentality and big company recruitment, especially in the old industrial parts of our country.
I know that there is increasing liaison between my hon. Friend's Department and the world of schools and education. I should like to see added to that dimension the concept promoted by teachers and the Manpower Services Commission, and by all those involved, that there is nothing ignoble or sleazy about working for oneself, and paying taxes. That is working likewise for the community.
With regard to representation, the self-employed, rather like the unemployed, by their very nature do not have a powerful voice in the House, or in Whitehall. There is not an organisation to speak solely for the self-employed. They are busy enough trying to earn a living without taking time to get involved in representative bodies. There is no CBI for the self-employed. Even the Small Firms Council does not speak for the one or two-man businesses. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses has a powerful voice, as does the Forum of Private Business. Due to the absence of a powerful representative trade union for the self-employed, I would like the Government to consider the possibility of regular quarterly meetings between Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and representatives of the self-employed, in the same way as the Chancellor and his colleagues regularly consult big business and the big trade unions.
I should also like the national federation and other organisations to be consulted about appointments to Government bodies and organisations such as wages councils, even if they themselves are not appointed, or the Government committee or wages council about which they are consulted is not directly concerned, because it does concern all those working on their own, whether it is an appointment to the MSC area boards or the Health and Safety Executive.
There is evidence, from the huge growth in the numbers of self employed, from 1·8 million to 2·6 million in just six years, that people want to be self-employed and like to be self-employed. They want the chance to go it alone. They appreciate the freedom and scope to explore new opportunities. I see that growth as part of a changing pattern of work in our culture. It is seen, too, in contract working and the huge increase in part-time working.
There has been a swing away from the employee mentality and the notion that the employer will always


provide. There are now more people out there in our society who want to work for themselves. I believe that it is up to the Government to help them to do it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I warmly welcome the opportunity to consider the Government's policies on self-employment, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) for focusing attention on an area that is central to the Government's efforts to foster the development of enterprise, innovation and growth.
I remember visiting Darlington during Enterprise Week in June 1984 and being impressed by the industrial exhibition which I was invited to open. Subsequently, I have been impressed by my hon. Friend's interest in small firms in general, and the self-employed especially. It is characteristic of him to have initiated such an important debate.
The growth in self-employment has been staggering; my hon. Friend referred, accurately, to a figure of 2·6 million. It has been a striking and encouraging feature of recent employment trends. Of the 2·6 million, about 91,000 are in the north-east. Numbers have increased by about one third since we came to office, which means that one in 10 of those in employment is working for himself. The expanding population of self-employed is the pool from which new goods, services, idea and talents will be drawn, and it is the base for growth in output and employment. It is also testimony to our conviction that there is a wealth of entrepreneurial talent among the unemployed and among employees that has in the past been stifled. As my hon. Friend suggested, in the right climate, it could flourish.
It is also testimony to our belief that people, not Governments, create jobs. The Government can create the conditions that will encourage the establishment and growth of new enterprises. That is the foundation of our employment and economic strategies. Our task is to remove the disincentive to enterprise so that individuals can exploit their potential and skills for their good and for the benefit of the economy as a whole.
Some of the steps that we have taken are an important part of that task and directly encourage people into self-employment. The enterprise allowance scheme helps unemployed people to start their own businesses, by giving them an allowance of £40 a week to help to overcome the disincentive of loss of benefit. More than 130,000 people have taken advantage of the scheme, about 7,000 of them in the north-east. That shows an encouraging success rate of businesses that are supported by the scheme. The latest evidence shows that 61 per cent. of those receiving allowance for a full year were still trading three years after start-up. That makes it the most successful start-up scheme in the world. I know that that sounds dramatic, but we recently made a comparison with the continent. There is no comparable start-up scheme on the continent or in the United States.
From 1 April, 80,000 places will be available nationally, and about 4,200 will be available in the northeast. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that. For the first time, the Manpower Services Commission is engaging in national and regional marketing to increase awareness of the scheme and to encourage employees to consider self-employment as an option. That is an

important point, because in the past we have not marketed the scheme. We have not needed to market the scheme, because people have become aware of it principally through personal contact. We have not paid for a single advertisement to push the scheme, so we do not know what its potential is. But in view of the successful take-up of the scheme so far, I believe that much potential remains untapped.
Training is vital to allow more self-employed people to establish themselves successfully and to expand. My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we have asked the Manpower Services Commission to refocus its adult training strategy still more sharply on the needs of the self-employed. Next year the MSC plans to spend about £20 million more in those areas. In 1986–87 more than 100,000 places are available on courses in the programme that we have called "Training for Enterprise". There will be 25,000 places on one-day business workshops to give people considering self-employment a thorough explanation of what is involved and to encourage them to take up further training. Eighteen thousand places will be available on a five to 10-day self-employment course designed for those wishing to start up a one-person business. These courses provide up to six months' further counselling and other help. In addition, other public sector bodies and the private sector also help to provide the training necessary to help the self-employed improve their management and business skills.
My hon. Friend referred to the unemployed. Encouraging them is one important way of encouraging people to consider self-employment as an alternative. We share the view that the key to changing attitudes is to persuade young people of the benefits and satisfaction of working for themselves.
That brings me to the youth training scheme. The YTS is principally seen as only a training scheme, but we are changing our minds about this. We believe that within the youth training scheme enterprise exists. We have an opportunity, through that scheme, to develop the enterprise culture among YTS trainees. We see that efforts can be made to develop and strengthen that potential.
I have had the opportunity of seeing this in visiting one particular programme which I would draw to the attention of my hon. Friend. It is known as the Genesis programme. The Genesis programme, which is an approved management agency, has identified no fewer than 44 different products and services, of which 12 have been established on the market and are earning revenue. It must be remembered that this is a YTS scheme. In Wales, 16 YTS trainees are involved in a project likely to create some 12 to 20 permanent new jobs for ex-trainees; and in Scotland an independent fashion knitwear business has been set up and looks like creating about six full and part-time jobs.
This may seem like small beer, but the truth is that in the past two years we had never thought that we had within such a training scheme the potential to develop self-employment. Now we think that this opportunity exists, particularly at the present time with the extension of the YTS programme from one year to two. The MSC is already planning to design an enterprise module for the two-year YTS scheme to set up an advice centre of YTS managing agents on self-employment enterprise. That is a very recent innovation.
Nevertheless, we can start at an even younger age. I believe that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are


to change attitudes dramatically, we need to start in schools. We need to concentrate on youngsters between the ages of 14 and 18. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Education and Science and my Department are involved in promoting a knowledge of industry among schoolchildren. This is one of the principal aims of Industry Year 1986. It is essential for companies and schools to form closer links. We would like to see all scholchildren able to understand simple business plans and to read balance sheets in a simplified form. That is quite an aim. We also wish to set a target of at least one mini-enterprise in every secondary school by the end of this year. I am very encouraged by the lead that is being taken in this regard by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that that target is attainable.
Apart from the measures that I have already mentioned, I stress that the self-employed have to be ready to make themselves aware of their own limitations, a point on which my hon. Friend touched. What they want is ready and inexpensive access to information, to advice and to counselling, so that they can discuss business plans and problems. In this regard, the small firms service plays a very significant role. It offers free advice and information to all who request it. Each small firms centre advertises in its region the range of services available and where they can be obtained, so that self-employment will be not only an option but obviously a preference in many cases.
My hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of local enterprise agencies. He has a particularly good example of one in his constituency which was responsible for organising the industrial exhibition to which I referred earlier. We now have some 321 enterprise agencies throughout the nation, and that is a significant success. Although the figures which hit my desk in the Department of the Employment show that one in three small firms go to the wall over a three-year period, in those areas where enterprise agencies are established, offering a hand-holding service, the failure rate is one in 12 over the same period. So the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Some of the enterprise agencies help with finance, premises, equipment and training. To recognise their importance we have just announced a new scheme for 1986–87 costing £2·5 million, where we are prepared to match the private sector contribution to those enterprise agencies on a pound-for-pound basis up to a limit of about £20,000.
My hon. Friend referred to the definition of self-employment. In the White Paper to which he referred, "Lifting the Burden", we showed our determination to clarify the criteria for determining whether someone is self-employed. My hon. Friend said that he wants to see self-employment as a right, not a privilege. I find it difficult to accept that it is currently a privilege. It is a freedom for those entering contracts to agree whatever contractual arrangements they consider suitable to their circumstances.
Whether someone is an employee or a self-employed person depends on all the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship. But action has been taken on the White Paper recommendations. The legal considerations have been simply explained in a new leaflet entitled "Tax-Employed or Self-Employed" published by the Inland Revenue, which I warmly welcome.
Changes have been implemented to ensure that the DHSS and the Inland Revenue work in closer liaison than perhaps they have in the past in determining employment status, including more training to help the staff appreciate the difficulties that individuals have in understanding what their status is. Those steps will help to ensure clear and consistent decisions about employment status.
Tax matters, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not expect me to comment in greater detail in a debate taking place only about three days before the Budget. But I share the view that we need to legitimise the enterprise which is not taking place outside the tax system, to which my hon. Friend specifically referred.
I can see some difficulties in the idea which has been put forward by many an amnesty, including questions of scope, duration, and how to achieve fairness to those honest taxpayers who have been disadvantaged through unfair competition from those evading taxes. But I shall draw the specific points that my hon. Friend made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I was interested in the suggestion that the Government should look more closely at the burdens on the self-employed. The "Burdens on Business" survey, which formed the background to the White Paper "Lifting the Burden", published in May, included proprietorships and partnerships in its sample, and almost 40 per cent. of those interviewed employed 10 people or fewer.
The majority of those constraints identified in the White Paper affect the self-employed as well as small and larger enterprises. The self-employed will therefore benefit from the action that the Government have taken, or are taking, to lift the burdens.
I have identified one difficulty in the three years that I have been responsible as the sponsoring Minister for small firms, and that is that there may well be a difficulty in discriminating in favour of the self-employed because it might discourage some entrepreneurs from developing their business. That must be taken into account. There is no way in which the Government would encourage small businesses to remain small. That cannot be a part of our policy and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington would not wish us to go down that route.
We have had an interesting debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. I recognise the concern felt by him, and I recognise also the fact that the voice of the self-employed may not always be as loud as other voices. Having met the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses on about 50 occasions in the past three years, I can tell my hon. Friend that I sometimes doubt whether it is quiet. I can assure my hon. Friend that I take all that it says very seriously, and I think that most of its proposals are constructive.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the debate. His concern to encourage further growth in the number of self-employed is a key objective of our employment strategy. It is part of the answer to encouraging the growth of employment by extending the adaptability and flexibility in the work force and by securing the base from which future small businesses will grow. The self-employed are central to the sort of society that the Government are seeking to create. It is a society based on freedom, enterprise and initiative. The Government's commitment to them is not a fleeting one or a passing


phase. It is a commitment shared by the whole of the Government and having heard his excellent contribution, it is clearly a commitment firmly held by my hon. Friend.

Law Centres

Mr. David Clelland: I rise to put the case for the continuation and extension of the funding of law centres in this country. I have vested reasons for doing so because in my constituency I have two such centres which are not only active but are providing an essential and proven service to the people of Gateshead and Newcastle.
The Benwell law centre in Newcastle and the Gateshead law centre owe their existence to the financial support they have relied upon from the local authorities via the urban programme. However, that is coming to an end and their continued existence will depend on the willingness and ability of the two local authorities to bear the full weight of the costs of running the centres once the inner area partnership funding ceases. For Benwell that is imminent. The funding for the centre ceases on 31 March this year and to date the city council has not been able to give a detailed answer on future support. I am aware that the council is sympathetic and supports the continued functioning of the law centre. However, whether funding can be maintained at the same level as hitherto is a question which the authority has to consider, along with all the other priorities which are under scrutiny as a result of the attitude of the Government to local government finance, which has resulted in the rate capping of the city council.
Similarly, but not so urgently, the Gateshead law centre will lose urban programme funding support at the end of this year. Gateshead council is sympathetic and recognises the important role that the centre has played. The council is committed to support the centre from 1 April 1987, but the centre does not yet know where funding is to come from for the three months from December this year to April.
Much time and effort is taken up by these two centres in securing funding for their continued existence. That time would be much better spent providing the necessary help which they exist to provide. A similar problem exists in other parts of this country. Often it arises directly from the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the totally inadequate arrangements that the Government have allowed for the continued support of these and similarly placed organisations. As a result of these and other pressures, several law centres may close in April, having exhausted all apparent means of continuing unless the Government intervene to help. Centres in Liverpool, Paddington and Hillingdon are under threat of closure. Others, particularly in London, are facing major cuts in services, if not closure, and in common with Benwell and Gateshead, many others face an uncertain future.
The Government's attitude was summed up in a letter to the chairperson of the Law Centres Federation in reply to her letter expressing concern at the position. Referring to Lord Elton, the letter from Lord Elton's private secretary stated:
he and his colleagues have always made it clear that it is in the end the local authorities which must decide which voluntary organisations they will support. These grants are primarily for local services, and the decisions on priorities must be local ones. One of the objectives of abolition was to bring local government decisions down to what is at present the lower tier of local government, which is closer to local needs.
Lord Elton has asked me to say that he is very sorry that two of your centres are in danger of closing, but that he is unable to interfere with the decisions of the local authorities.


This position must be rectified. It is not sufficient for the Government to argue that the local authorities should find the money to continue funding. First, the provisions of section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 will provide an answer only where metropolitan or London authorities jointly agree to funding. That will not happen and is not happening where some authorities see the service as being confined to a district. Secondly, the Government's own regressive policies towards local authorities have led to a situation where many councils have been squeezed beyond the squeaking of the pips. Thirdly, law centres often represent clients who have a grievance against the local authority, which would suggest that their independence from direct local authority control would be preferable. That would not necessarily obtain for long if they were 100 per cent. financed by the councils. Yet the refusal of Ministers to extend urban aid grant or to offer any alternative means of support will result in either that or closure. The Government must not stand idly by and watch these vital public services close. The case for their existence is made and the Government should accept it and provide the necessary finance.
Lest the Government have somehow missed what has been going on, I remind the House of the valuable service provided by the law centres. There are 57 law centres in the United Kingdom, serving deprived inner areas. They provide a free advice service by trained legal and specialist workers. Their opening hours often suit working people in particular. Some operate a 24-hour emergency service. They are complementary to general legal services and are supported by the Law Society. They run advice sessions out of office hours, sometimes outside the centre itself. The Gateshead centre, for example, runs sessions from the borough council's mobile community bus. Because many of their clients are on low incomes and much of the case work does not qualify for legal aid, few private solicitors can deal with it. Matters with which private solicitors can deal are often referred to them by the law centres. One typical centre estimates 40 such referrals each week.
I have mentioned the support for law centres of the Law Society, and I should add weight to that by drawing attention to the comments of the Royal Commission on legal services, which in its 1979 report said:
The impact of law centres has been out of all proportion to their size, to the number of lawyers who work in them, and to the amount of work it is possible for them to undertake. The volume of work they have attracted has shown how deep is the need they are attempting to meet.
Far from standing by and allowing a vital service to die, the Government should be taking urgent steps to secure the future and plan the expansion of law centres. The Gateshead centre alone, with the equivalent of five full-time workers, received more than 6,000 inquiries and handled 500 cases last year. The demand—the need—especially in our inner cities, far exceeds the ability of the current level of service to provide. Only one in 10 people have access to a law centre. To reduce the service would be madness and completely contrary to all sensible opinion and everything that has been and is being said about inner-city problems. Even this Government cannot deny that the case for the continuance and expansion of an independent law centre network is irrefutable.
The position was adequately summed up during the recent conference of all major advice networks in the United Kingdom. In a joint declaration they spelt out the needs of the nation in the following terms:
We need a coherent national strategy for the funding and development of advice and law centres. Central Government should ensure that existing services are preserved and that there is an expansion to meet the need. This may be attained through a mix of central and local government funding, but responsibility for achieving it must rest with Central Government.
A national policy must aim to provide a network of advice and legal services that are comprehensive, competent and well publicised, accessible to people in need, independent enough to act in the best interests of their users, sufficiently diverse to meet a wide range of needs, planned and delivered with the involvement of local people and accountable to the local community, supported by adequate back-up facilities—information, training and specialist expertise, able to provide effective feedback to central and local government, nationalised industries and other public and private bodies, so that they may act to remedy malpractice, inefficiency or unfair treatment of individuals and groups.
These centres have huge support from individuals, and communities using them, because they provide services that are genuinely needed. Thousands of volunteers throughout the country are involved in the staffing and management of advice and law centres.
The case for advice and law centres is not in dispute. We are all united in defence of existing services and in the need to ensure that policy-makers and funders at national and local level take their responsibilities seriously. Working together we can maintain and develop the much needed network of advice and law centres.
The Government are fond of promoting themselves as the guardians of law and order, but there is more to law and order than arming the police force with plastic bullets and riot gear. There is also the problem of access to the law, and proper representation. Justice cannot be the sole prerogative of the rich and mighty. If the ordinary man or woman in the street believes that justice can only be obtained if it can be paid for, the Government have no right to parade their concern for justice and equality under the law.
By supporting law centres, the Government can demonstrate more concern for fair treatment by that one act than by all the empty rhetoric that often accompanies discussion of law and order from the Government Benches. I hope that the Government will have the good sense to accept the great weight of argument in favour of law centres and make provision for adequate and continuing funding.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am glad to have the opportunity, even at three o'clock in the morning, to address the issue of law centres and their funding, as in my view it is of crucial importance, not least to inner city areas like Vauxhall which I represent and to Lambeth.
The law centre projects have been on time-expired funding in the context of the inner city partnership arrangements which, in the early 1970s, were part of the consensual politics of the country. In other words, the Conservative Government in the early 1970s supported the inner city partnership schemes and recognised that there were special needs in areas of stress in the inner city which needed special financing if they were adequately to begin to remedy the needs of those in the inner city. Such needs are dealt with and represented by law centres. Some of those needs are dramatic while others seem relatively mundane, but they are not mundane to my constituents.
Inner cities have special problems in education, not least as the problems are frequently compounded by the lack of a stable home environment which may reflect the under employment, insecure employment or unemployment of the parent or parents concerned. The borough of Lambeth, for example, has the highest proportion of single-parent families in the country. Schools must try to cope with under-achievement. With chronically high unemployment—the rate ranges from one third to two thirds and in individual wards may reach 100 per cent. of school leavers—it is not surprising that staff are under considerable pressure in the classroom.
I wish to deal with the role of law centres in education issues, and to pay tribute to teachers in inner-city schools, especially those in my constituency, who are doing the best that they can in extremely difficult circumstances, to deal with problems in the classroom, not least as their level of pay is falling behind previous or comparable levels. The following example was dealt with by a law centre and it is unlikely that it would have been dealt with in another way.
The child was suspended from school and the parents wanted to appeal against expulsion. The child was suspended because the school said that he needed special education and claimed that the parents refused to co-operate. A law centre in my constituency obtained a report from an independent child psychologist which showed that there was nothing wrong with the child. The law centre had sight of an Inner London Education Authority psychologist's report which said that the child needed extra help with reading and no more. The school was using the report of a hospital psychologist, who was not making progress with the parents, and so, in the view of the law centre, was not making progress with the child. The school said that the child was disruptive, and many children are undoubtedly disruptive in school. There was a substantive issue of judgment on the merits of the case for suspension.
The law centre remedied the position by discovering that the hospital psychologist had mistakenly given information about the child's brother. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the case, there had been wrongful identification. The law centre could help the parents, whereas a solicitor would not normally be able to take such a case, and the parents would have had difficulty in obtaining legal aid.
That is a major matter to the individual and family concerned. Many of my constituents, especially those without employment and receiving social security benefits, could not necessarily obtain legal aid in seeking to represent their children's interests. Although apparently mundane, it is important for those concerned.
In other cases, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), if the funding of law centres was to be passed to local authorities there could be—prima facie—a conflict of interest between the local authority's obligations and its obligations to individuals who wished to bring a case against the council.
Often these cases appear mundane, such as complaints about housing conditions. But, again, they are serious for those concerned. There may be a case of eviction. As the Member for an inner city constituency, I frequently face individuals coming to my weekly advice surgery with notice of eviction from the council. It may have arrived on the Friday and may mean they have to be in the court

on the Monday. Such individuals do not necessarily know how to cope with their claim against eviction when such notices may be ill-founded.
The housing officers in my constituency have an extremely difficult job. There have been cuts in the housing investment programme, the rate support grant and, therefore, in central Government assistance. The housing problem which was evident when I became a Member in 1979 is now a housing crisis. This has been compounded by the abolition of the GLC. When I became a Member it was quite feasible to move several hundred or several thousand people a year on GLC nominations. That has now come to an end. We now have inter borough nominations which are a "no hope" application for a housing transfer.
There are people, sometimes as many as five, living in one bedroom accommodation. This accommodation is often chronically damp—many of the estates were built in the 1930s or 1940s. Later system-built estates—are not proofed against heat loss.
When the council cannot offer a remedy, some of my constituents resort to the non payment of rent. They hope that this will bring pressure to bear on the council. Others have been in difficulties because of the horrendous problems which have been caused with regard to housing benefit. Because of the pressure on social security offices due to rising unemployment, the Government wished to transfer housing benefit to local authorities. The local authorities protested that it would be difficult to cope, not least because of successive changes in Government legislation. Therefore, the delays in the payment of housing benefit are considerable. As a result, many families in my constituency, not least some of the single parent families, have been withholding rent because, rightly in my judgment, they have given priority of feeding or clothing their children and themselves.
In such cases, matters should and can be remedied by law centres. They are not the type of problems on which people in the inner city areas can automatically apply for legal aid nor the types of problems which solicitors would necessarily take up or in respect of which they would make an application for legal aid. It is because so many of those who are worst afflicted by these problems do not have the financial resources to go to a private solicitor that they cannot get adequate redress without a law centre.
The problems affect the state of mind of people in the inner cities. People come to my advice surgery who are desperate about their housing conditions, who are living in one room because all the other rooms are damp, or who are in over-crowded accommodation where the council is technically in breach of its legal obligations. For example, teenage children of different sexes are sleeping in the same rooms because of such conditions, and the council cannot remedy the problem because it no longer has access to GLC nomination elsewhere in London, and because of the cuts in housing investment. In such cases, law centres fulfil an important function in being able to represent the interests of those who lack the resources to raise their case.
A further important matter is immigration and immigration procedure. Again, any Member of Parliament in an inner city area is likely to be familiar with the claims made by individuals against deportation orders, and of the complexities in many, if not most, of the cases. Individual Members, I am sure, do the best that they can in seeking


to represent the interests of their constituents to see that justice can be done, or, if that is over-ambitious, that effective representations are made to Ministers.
However, representations to Ministers are more effective if they are assisted by professional advice from those specialising in immigration affairs, in law centres. In my weekly advice work, I can easily have between 25 and 35 separate cases to deal with in one evening, which may involve 45 or 50 people being in my surgery. Without being a permanent advice worker ones self, there is no way in which one can do adequate credit to the needs and the demands of those who are bringing the case on education, housing or immigration, unless one has the assistance that is made possible not just by the citizens advice bureaux but by the law centres.
Immigration is especially important, given that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants does the best that it can, but the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, which also does its best, is not an independent body and does not have the relative autonomy in these cases that the law centres have. The means of redress for such grievances, are essential. Mundane though they might be in the cases of education or housing, such cases are more serious and dramatic in immigration.
When it comes to policing, the matter is all important, as are the complaints about policing made by my constituents in the Lambeth and Brixton areas. On previous occasions, I have paid credit to the enlightened policing at the commander level in my borough, and I have in mind especially the extent to which a fragile peace was kept on the streets between 1981–85. This in large part was due to the enlightened policing and openness of approach of the former police commander, Alex Marnoch. However, I cannot certainly say the same below senior level in the borough of Lambeth. On the street at the ordinary young police constable level there are forms of behaviour which, while in some cases no doubt impeccable and excellent, in other cases are clearly provocative and disturbing to my constituents.
I have it in mind, for example, to cite not just the direct experience of my constituents or my own indirect evaluation of the problem but the kind of report which was made by The Economist following the events which took place at the end of September last year where the journalist concerned directly reported racist behaviour by police, assault by police on individuals who, in the judgment of the journalist, had committed no offence and then, in the police station itself, offensive behaviour again used by police even in the charge room.
If these cases cannot be adequately remedied, they lead to a build-up of pressure and social discontent. Again, I am not saying that in each individual case the integrity of police officers should be impugned. The problem is that, when the standards which we should expect of policing fall, when it is not simply the perception of individuals that they are being discriminated against but in particular of black people in my constituency that they may be discriminated against, then the problem potentially gives rise to considerable social discontent. The difference is then expressed when the threshold is lowered and when disorders occur, as they occurred in 1981 and again following the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce in my constituency of Vauxhall, Lambeth.
If one is young, whether one is black or white, and one has been picked up without due cause and put in the back of a van and kneed in the groin or maltreated on that occasion, the next time one sees a police officer on the ground with other people around, one will not be likely to move towards the scene to assist the officer to recover. Unfortunately, it is more likely that worse consequences may follow for the police themselves.
It is in these kind of cases following events in September of last year that the role played by the Brixton law centre was extremely important in enabling people who felt that they had grievances following the disorders—whether they were grievances with regard to the police or other grievances with regard to individuals—to come forward and state their case, and for an evaluation to be made of the evidence in the cases arising from those disorders.
As the Member of Parliament for a constituency called Vauxhall but which, indeed, includes a large part of central Brixton, I found it extremely useful that the law centre, in a very sober and serious-minded way, convened meetings of private solicitors, and other interested parties and was able to take an overview of cases. For instance, following those disorders, people who on some occasions had been picked up off the street in snatch and grab seizures were being taken to police stations with no adequate information being given. Tnen they appeared in court. Nobody knew in which court they would appear and nobody was necessarily in a position to represent them. I put it to senior police in Lambeth at the time that this was a potentially dangerout situation—I stress dangerous—inasmuch as if innocent people were being charged but were not adequately represented in the courts this gave rise to secondary grievance which itself, if a further incident occurred that was comparable to that of the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce, could trigger a further chain of events.
Again I pay credit to the senior police, because they grasped that and they were willing to co-operate with the law centre as a reputable, estabished body that could adequately represent the interests of those being charged. The system did not work perfectly by any means. But in principle it meant that the police were co-operating by indicating to the law centre, and to the duty service that was staffed by the law centre, who had been charged, in which court they would appear, and at what time, and also be seeking to ensure that they were represented.
I do not want to suggest that disorder or disturbances in inner cities are provoked simply by policing, although in the case of Mrs. Cherry Groce—and in 1981—the underlying cause was policing. As soon as a disorder has started it is clear that serious offences are committed by individuals against other members of the public and that the due process of the law should obtain, that charges should be brought and that sentences should be passed. However, the cases that I have just cited include many that do not come within that category. Failure to provide due process and means of legal redress for those who cannot afford access to private solicitors becomes a matter of importance to inner city peace.
The Government appear several times over to have changed their policy on the funding of law centres. In a letter to Lord Elwyn-Jones dated 19 November 1984 the Lord Chancellor said:
The Government acknowledge the part to be played by law centres in the provision of legal services where this suits local circumstances. I appreciate that law centres are now seen as playing an important part in the provision of advisory services.
There was also a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department to Simon Hillyard of the Law Society dated 20 November 1984 which said that after the abolition of the Greater London Council Government policy would be to provide traditional support for London boroughs to help individual local authorities to take on support for purely local organisations or projects.
In its 34th annual report, published in January 1985, the Legal Aid Advisory Committee made two significant recommendations in paragraph 441. The first was that the law centres should be treated as an essential part of the national network of legal services. The second recommendation was that the first priority should be to ensure the survival of existing law centres without waiting for changes in local government and urban programme policies to see what support borough councils and district councils could provide.
I shall be very interested in the Government's response on the funding of law centres. At present both individuals and local councils are caught in a "Catch 22" type dilemma. I raised this matter in a debate on 26 February 1985, but there has been no adequate long-term response by the Government. Tonight, I began by saying that law centres come within the category of funding of time expired projects. The needs of the inner cities are not time expired. The needs of the inner cities—the desperate unemployment and the chronic housing situation—have increased rather than decreased. The cases which are being brought and the grievances which are to be remedied have increased rather than decreased. Yet if a borough such as Lambeth were to take on a major share of the funding of law centres, with rate capping and ceilings on rate expenditure, it would have to choose between law centre provision, social services provision or provision, for example, for the 4,000 Cantonese refugees from Vietnam, who are in my constituency and whom I am glad to seek to help, but who are here as a result of Government policy and Government invitation. The local council would be in the invidious position of having to choose between cutting alternative projects for those in need. The catch 22 position is that if Lambeth were to support law centres, it would risk breaking the law itself by exceeding the rate capping limit.
I stress that if law centres do not continue to be funded by central Government, no Minister and no hon. Member should be surprised if people take the law into their own hands. This is an urgent and important matter on which we expect a significant response from the Government.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) for having sought the debate? I am grateful to him for two reasons. First, he has raised a matter which is of considerable importance to the Labour party and which we take very seriously. My second reason for being grateful to him when he speaks of the work of the Benwell law centre and of the law centre in Gateshead is that he is speaking for the community in Tyneside. As his neighbour there, I appreciate the points which he made on behalf of the community that we both represent.
Before being elected to the House, I was a councillor for the Walker ward and an official of the General,

Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. As a full-time trade union official, I used to deal with the advice services that the union offered. In both that capacity and as a councillor I know that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) are equally true for the community on Tyneside. Even as a Member of Parliament I often feel that I cannot give to all the cases that come to my surgery the in-depth attention which they deserve. If an hon. Member goes into a case as a professional adviser, he finds that he is neglecting other duties. As both my hon. Friends have emphasised, there is a need for independent advice based on something other than the more formal provision of legal services.
The debate touches on two strategic issues—the principle as to whether law centres are a good thing, and who should take responsibility for funding law centres and more general advice services. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge rightly quoted the 1979 report of the Royal Commission on legal services. In regard to the principle of the existence of law centres he could equally have quoted the 35th report of the Law Society, which said on page 57:
The Society has continued to express concern to the Government about the severe effects on law centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux which may well result from the legislation abolishing the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county authorities. Law centres and advice agencies are also in an uncertain financial position as a result of other restrictions on local authority expenditure and changes in policy on the use of the Urban Programme. Urban Programme policy is now unhelpful to law centres and advice agencies. Bids for this form of funding have all been rejected by central government despite many being given high priority by their sponsoring local authorities.
That was the Law Society being supportive of law centres. Equally my hon. Friend the Member of Tyne Bridge could have quoted the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid. The Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee is supportive of law centres. In other words, there is no lack of support for these centres, either in the legal profession or in the bodies most closely concerned with giving advice to those who are in charge of our legal services.
Even the Government seem to accept that law centres are, in principle, worth while. Earlier this week, at a meeting of the Advice Services Alliance, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) said:
Society would break down if it were not for the work of advice centres.
I regret that I came in part way through his remarks on that occasion. I may have missed his explanation of why the Government were being niggardly over the funding of law centres, which he said were essential to preserving the fabric of society.
The Labour party takes the view that the Lord Chancellor should take a lead in this matter. The whole issue of funding goes further than law centres and the nation's network of advice centres, citizens advice bureaux and so on. The overall provision of legal services faces a financial crisis greater than at any time in recent history.
The Solicitor-General will recall our recent debates on the funding of the new Crown prosecution service. I hope that we shall soon debate the cuts in legal aid provision. He will be aware of the litigation that is now taking place, with the Lord Chancellor being sued by members of the


Bar because they regard their funding as inadequate and consider that their representations on the subject were not adequately considered.
It is against that background that we are discussing, in proportionate terms, the small work of the law centres. It is not simply a question of the contribution that they make to the provision of legal services. We must bear in mind the work that they undertake. They do not cover the type of work that family solicitors do. Their work is different and they touch areas of the community that, by and large, solicitors do not reach. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall cited examples from his constituency. Similar cases could be given from any inner city.
The Lord Chancellor continues to say that he will not take responsibility for the further funding of law centres. Indeed, he claims that he has no statutory power to do so. That is a red herring because the last Labour Lord Chancellor found it possible to take on the funding of time-expired law centre projects in inner cities. The present Government continue to fund those projects but refuse to take on any new law centres.
My hon. Friends and I gave the Government an opportunity, during the passage of the Administration of Justice Act, to give the Lord Chancellor the powers he needed to provide the necessary funding. It was clear from the Government's arguments on that occasion that not only did the Lord Chancellor not have the necessary powers to fund law centres, but that he did not wish to have such powers. The argument is that these are matters for local provision, not that there will be any extra local funding for it—funding must be from existing resources. All credit is due to Newcastle city council for taking on the Benwell law centre in spite of being rate-capped and having to find the money from stretched resources. That demonstrates the commitment that the local representatives give the law centre's work. It is wholly reprehensible that the Government do not share that commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right to stress independence. An organisation that is to provide advice should be independent of the local authority, as many of the issues that it will deal with concern the local authority. My experience is that the local authority as landlord is often involved. We can test the sincerity of the Government's argument about local responsibility in the case of a new law centre for Huddersfield. I understand that the Department of the Environment is considering whether it should be provided with urban aid as a new project. Kirklees council, which has submitted the bid, has made it a priority. That is the local view. I hope that, at least for the experimental period, the Department will feel able to let such a bid go through. If it does not, that will show what a sham and a hypocrisy is the Government's claim that these matters should be determined locally. The Government will be saying that the Lord Chancellor should not provide central funding and that although there is local support for a scheme, it should not go ahead.
Law centres serve the very inner-city communities that are bearing the brunt of the recession. Law centres do not touch on the generality of solicitors' work but provide a service that would not be provided otherwise, except by volunteers and diligent councillors and Members of Parliament who have limited provisions for staff, most of whom are underpaid or volunteers. Their work touches on that done by other advice agencies and the trade union

movement. Their resources are stretched and they spend much of their time worrying about funding and whether they will continue. Against that sorry background, we are asserting, on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour party, the case for law centres and the case for Government funding.
I should like to conclude by mentioning something that always irritates me when we have these debates at 3.30 am. When I attended the meeting to which I referred earlier, a representative of the Conservative party was present, as was a representative of the Liberal party in the form of its environment spokesman, and, quite separately, there was a representative of the Social Democratic party. They claim to be two separate parties. It has emerged that they have two, three or perhaps four policies. Always, when there is a public platform their righteous views—often their self-righteous views—will be expressed.
But whenever I am here making out a case in the early hours of the morning, as I have a duty to do on behalf of the Opposition, not a spokesman of the alliance is present. In Committee stage on Bills it is left to the Government and the Opposition to conduct debates until the early hours of the morning. Alliance Members do not show their faces. Even in the morning Committee debates they turn up, make their speeches and go away again. Then they have the nerve to suggest that they are something new in politics. They are not; they are something very old in politics—skivers. They do not turn up when they ought to.
The Solicitor-General and I are used to looking at each other across the Despatch Box in the early hours of the morning because of the workings of the Consolidation Bill procedure. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General has come here to tell us the Government's views on these matters. My only fear is that he will say that he has come here as the agent of the Lord Chancellor. I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor, as we already know, has little sympathy for the case that we have made out tonight.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I, too, join in expressing my appreciation of the value of the service rendered by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) in giving us this opportunity to discuss the standing, future and funding of law centres.
I share a certain amount of sympathy, too, for what has been said about the so-called alliance parties by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who is the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary neighbour in the north-east. I can contribute an illustration of the propensity to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred from a Committee in which I took part recently. A representative of the SDP-Liberal alliance declared his opinion that the amendment under discussion had not been made out in argument, whereupon he voted for it. Engagingly, he declared himself to be in two minds and rather split, a difficulty which he was frank enough to describe as not unfamiliar to him and his colleagues.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge said about the two law centres in his constituency. I have particulars of the funding that each of them has received. Benwell law centre has received a grant of £65,000, which expires in 1986. The Gateshead law centre received a grant of £59,000. As the hon. Gentleman said, the arrangements for that funding expire in 1987. I was very glad to hear that Newcastle city council has taken


over the funding of the Benwell centre. I say that because I take the view that law centres are, to use the words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East very largely a good thing, for the reasons expressed tonight, especially those put forward by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), in whose constituency I lived before he took responsibility for it.
I well understand some of the problems that come the way of law centres in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In the main, law centres deal valuably with those problems. That is my position, and I believe that it is the attitude of the entire Government.
The Government must take into account the second of the issues which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East identified: who should be responsible for the funding? There is no conflict between the views that I have just expressed and the view that has been taken consistently by the Government and their predecessors that, with the exception of seven law centres which the previous Lord Chancellor made a commitment to fund, law centres should be funded from local sources. The most obvious source is the local authority. It is the most obvious, but it is not the only one available. In a recent debate in another place, a persuasive case was made for the practicability and desirability of law centres looking elsewhere in their communities—perhaps to local businesses—for their funding.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, for whom I must appear as agent or spokesman, has consistently taken that view. It may be helpful if I explained a little about it. The Government's policy, which has been made abundantly clear, is that the appropriate source of funds is a local one.
It is interesting that the first law centre was established only in 1970. About 59 of them have been established piecemeal in response to perceived local needs, and they have obtained their funds from a variety of public and charitable sources. It is right that several reports from the Royal Commission on Legal Services and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid have recommended that law centres should become an integral part of the provision by central Government of legal services to the public, that there should be a considerable expansion in their number, and that they should receive central Government support through the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The Government do not dispute the usefulness of law centres in some areas, as shown in those reports, and most recently in the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission on urban priority areas. However, the Government do not accept that law centres are agencies for which central Government should assume direct and general responsibility. In the White Paper, "The Government Response to the Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services", the Government said:
The needs of the public for legal assistance are most appropriately met by lawyers acting in private practice supplemented, where this suits local circumstances, by law centres.
The White Paper also said that the Government did not believe that a sufficient case had been made for direct ministerial responsibility for the availability of legal services in any area.
I note the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall in his illustration of the difficult school case. He said that, in such a case, someone could not go to a solicitor and

expect a similar investigation. I understand that point. But there is a wide range of local advisory services, including the citizens advice bureaux, which the Royal Commission saw as the front-line provider of such services. If I remember correctly—and I believe that I am right—there still exists in Lambeth the Stockwell "good neighbour" scheme. I would be surprised if there were not others of a similar character in other districts of the hon. Member's constituency, which attract people of good will and expertise, and which would be able to help in the kind of case that he mentioned, without a law centre having to be available.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. He may or may not be aware that the Stockwell and Clapham law centre, for example, has been living from hand to mouth since this time last year because of uncertainty over its funding. I am grateful to him for taking seriously the point which I have raised about inner-city stress. What I would like him to address himself to is how centres can be funded in the context of rate capping. Or, granted the financial pressures on councils, who will provide the safety valve by means of which people can see that they have redress for their grievances through an intermediate procedure, rather than going to the courts. We need more professionalism than simply comes from a "good neighbour" scheme, however well intentioned.

The Solicitor-General: I quite see that local authorities have to operate within the same margins of financial restraint as affect a great many other bodies, including Government Departments, these days. It comes down to a matter of priority. Newcastle city council has found it possible, notwithstanding the other claims made upon it, to take on the funding of the Benwell law centre. I do not doubt that that city council considers itself hard pressed, as many others do, yet it has been able to take on that funding of £65,000. I would not wish to put it on the basis of "where there's a will there's a way", but this illustrates that it is possible.
It is very difficult to gainsay this answer to the hon. Gentleman, that it is a matter of priorities. I agree that where one has had a grant upon which one has come to rely, and where that grant is either taken away or curtailed, one will experience a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. I sympathise with those who are running law centres and who are in that position. Equally, I am not surprised that local authorities may have been holding out until the last minute, in the hope that representations such as those made this evening would bear fruit and that local authorities would not have to follow the example of Newcastle city council because the money would be made available by Government. I am afraid that I cannot hold out the prospect that the money will be so provided.
I should like also to say a word about the local authorities in this context, because the point has been made that one cannot really expect the local authorities to take on the funding of a law centre which may be financing cases by clients against the council itself. I know that there have been one or two instances of difficulty in that regard. It is regrettable. I regard them as being in the minority. The point is that many law centres are supported by local authorities, acting individually or under the urban programme, and these local authorities implicitly accept that a law centre has a duty to act in a client' s best interests, whoever the other party may be. It is, I think,


generally agreed that it would be very unreasonable for a local authority to refuse support for, or to withdraw support from, a law centre because it was, for instance, representing a council house tenant in dispute with the council as housing authority. It would be a rare case in which a local authority withdrew or withheld support on that ground.
I do not think that the claims of law centres for funding can be taken in isolation from other demands on the necessarily limited resources available to the public sector. It is for each individual authority to reach its own decision as to how best it applies the funds that it has available to it. But in the context of the abolition of the metropolitan councils and the GLC on 1 April, it should be borne in mind that local authorities in those areas will, after 1 April, be freed from paying precepts to their respective upper tier authorities. Those subject to rate limitation could apply for a variation of those limitations. In considering such applications the Secretary of State must have regard statutorily to the extent of the authority's commitment to the voluntary sector. That is a significant feature.
I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxall about the pressures that exist in an area where there is perceived to be antagonism and, to take his example, discrimination on the part of certain police officers against sectors of the community. I note the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to senior police officers in his constituency, but he says that there have been too many instances at lower levels of discrimination and unlawful behaviour on the part of the police.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 there exists a new and independent Police Complaints Authority. Under the same Act there is now provision, established by the Lord Chancellor, for a 24-hour duty solicitor scheme, whereby access to a solicitor is available on legal aid for somebody who is in a police station, having been arrested. That goes to mitigate the consequences of that which the hon. Gentleman has been describing. It is quite a significant improvement and one for which the Lord Chancellor, who has come in for a fair amount of stick tonight, can take the credit.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am not sure whether it is part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency experience, but it is certainly part of mine, that if an individual wishes to bring a complaint, for example, through the police complaints procedure, and that individual is not so well schooled as the hon. and learned Gentleman and I might be so fortunate to be, it is extremely useful for a law centre to be able to assist in the formulation of that submission to the Police Complaints Authority. Those factors should no be underestimated, certainly when taken in conjunction with the limited effectiveness of the previous police complaints procedure

and the as yet—in my view and I think that of several other hon. Members—not wholly proven track record of the new procedure.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that it is useful, but it is not indispensable by any means. There is now a sophisticated system which means that once a complaint has been made, however unschooled it may be, it really cannot be stopped. The complaint is registered and it has to be investigated under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. In the course of investigation, whatever may be lacking in detail and clarity in the original complaint will be supplemented and made good. It is said that there is an unproven track record. Have a heart. The thing has been going for only a short time. But it is an independent body and it is respectably staffed.
Let me say a little more about the extension to legal aid and advice that the Lord Chancellor has produced. They are clear indications of the importance which the Government attach to legal aid. Expenditure on legal aid has more than doubled in real terms since 1979. The Government have extended the scope of the legal aid and advice scheme in the past few years, for example, by the introduction of formal arrangements for the duty solicitor scheme in magistrates' courts, the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme which I have already mentioned for suspects held in custody, the provision of payments to solicitors and counsel on account of legal aid bills, extension of the assistance by way of representation scheme to proceedings in the mental health review tribunals and an increase in the capital allowance for applicants for ABWOR to £3,000. I think that those are signiicant improvements which demonstrate the Government's commitment to legal aid.
As I have said, legal aid, and law centres in particular, cannot expect to be exempted from the constraints of financial stringency which affect us all at the moment. Therefore, I should like to end as I began by expressing my understanding of the anxieties that are felt by those who run legal aid centres, but I should like to revert to the point that just as legal aid centres originated because of the perceived local need for help, so the best sources of funds remain in their own localities. I believe that because those who provide the money tend to wish to have some control over the operation of whatever is being funded it is better that those local centres, responding to local needs, should look to the local authorities and to other local sources for the funds that are needed for the work that they do.
I realise that it would be nice at 4 o'clock in the morning if I could end with something that those who have initiated the debate would like to hear. I hope that I have at least given a genuine indication of my sympathy for the work of the law centres, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of the Government acceding to the request that they should take over a statutory responsibility for funding.

Transport (West Yorkshire)

Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. Friend the Minister of State may not be as glad as I am to be here at 4 o'clock in the norning. Nevertheless, we much appreciate the contribution he makes in the office that he fills. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is here. He demonstrates every day, in Committee and when he contributes to transport debates, that it is possible to adopt an aggressive yet light-hearted tone across the Dispatch Boxes. We welcome the fact that he has stayed up until this late hour to join in this important debate about transport in west Yorkshire.
I think that it is fair to say that, among the factors which encourage the development of industry and commerce in particular areas, there is good evidence that transport links figure very near the top. I want to deal, in particular, with the western part of the county of west Yorkshire, which not only suffers from higher than average unemployment but has relatively poor road and rail communications. In the eastern part of west Yorkshire, Leeds and Wakefield have first-class rail links to London by the east coast main line and also first-class road links by the M1 motorway to the south of the country. However, places such as Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield come some way behind.
Leeds has attracted many new jobs in commerce and the services sector, but Bradford and its environs are still trying to recover from the shake-out in textile jobs which has taken place under successive Governments over many years and has reached a plateau only during the past 12 months or so. My constituency is defying the doom and gloom merchants and many firms are now more optimistic, although it remains to be seen whether that will turn into real jobs. Keighley is particularly poorly served by transport. Whether those jobs will come depends a great deal on the realisation of our transport needs.
Among the most important developments is the electrification of the east coast main line. Its completion to Doncaster and Leeds is eagerly awaited by the many people who use the train regularly, including me, and by tose who suffer from the delays caused by the many failures of the current diesel units. The fact that British Rail received substantial compensation from the manufacturer is little confort to those who are inconvenienced. The Government made the right decision in giving the go-ahead for this important and significant scheme. The increased reliability which the new Electra locomotives will bring is eagerly awaited also.
We are pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister will visit Bradford soon. Many people in Bradford are naturally unhappy about the link between the city and the rest of the inter-city network, especially the route between Bradford and Leeds. I understand that the existing dated rolling stock which is operated by the passenger transport executive is being replaced by the new Pacer train. That development is badly needed.
Many people in Bradford regard electrification of the route between Leeds and Bradford as essential to Bradford's regeneration. I must admit that, unlike some hon. Members, I do not believe that this argument necessarily stands up to rigorous examination. Decisions made by the great railway builders of the last century

inevitably cause the journey time from Wakefield to Bradford to be long, especially if the train has to stop at Leeds on the way. British Rail claims that a stop at Leeds between Wakefield and Bradford has been forced on it by commercial considerations. It has already ceased to run trains via the Wortley curve directly to Bradford.
The time factor has in the past deterred passengers from travelling through to Bradford by train even when no change of train was required during off-peak periods. This factor will continue to apply whether or not electrification comes. At the end of the day, whether a service is viable depends not on electrification but on whether sufficient passengers use it. I know that there is criticism of British Rail for making the service so unattractive that passengers are driven away, but I do not think that it is all the fault of British Rail that the number of passengers using the inter-city service during off-peak periods declined to such a low level that services were discontinued.
There has never been any suggestion that, if electrification were continued through from Leeds to Bradford, British Rail would again start running through trains during off-peak periods. It is hard to see what advantage electrification can bring to make the service more attractive. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume that the electrified inter-city services would continue through to Bradford only during peak periods. British Rail has already said that it intends to continue inter-city services to Bradford during peak periods following electrification of the east coast main line, with a change of traction at Leeds during the time currently allowed for the stop there.
Therefore, the only advantage that I can see that electrification would provide is a kind of guarantee that British Rail would be more likely—it is certainly not a cast-iron guarantee—to fulfil its pledge to continue inter-city sevices to Bradford than it would if a change of traction were necessary.
I believe that better ways can be found of spending the several millions of pounds—various figures, ranging from £5 million to £10 million, have been cited—that such a guarantee would cost. The question of the Wortley curve is separate and not directly related to electrification. It is connected with the question whether it is commercially viable to run trains through to Bradford which do not call at Leeds. It looks as if the courts will have to decide whether British Rail was justified in closing that stretch of line to passengers without submitting the issue to a Transport Users Consultative Committee inquiry and final decision by the Secretary of State.
We live in an age of convenience, but I do not understand how electrification can make things more convenient unless one were willing not only to spend the £4 million, £5 million or £10 million needed to electrify the link, but also to maintain a continuing subsidy each year for uneconomic trains.
Some Bradfordians have admitted that electrification would not make economic sense but would have a psychological effect. British Rail is required to achieve a 5 per cent. return on its inter-city services by 1988. I am not sure where a subsidy would come from. Even if Bradford council was initially willing for the ratepayers to meet the cost, it could hardly give a guarantee to continue doing that indefinitely. No doubt one would come to a different conclusion if it seemed that electrification could bring any genuine benefits to Bradford. I find it difficult to argue that there should be any exception from the


requirement that the inter-city service should be ineligible for public service obligation grant from April 1988, bearing in mind that this additional investment would incur additional costs if BR were to try to justify it by running through trains outside peak periods.
I should like to make some relatively brief comments about local rail lines as these are not the responsibility of BR or of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport but of the local PTE. The reason for that is not because they are unimportant; indeed, the contrary is the case.
Many commuters, shoppers, school pupils and tourists depend on the local rail lines between the major conurbations of Leeds and Bradford and the towns of Shipley, Bingley, Keighley and Skipton in Airedale and the smaller communities on the way to Ilkley in Wharfedale. In recent months there have been many complaints about the quality of the service. I would like to pay a tribute to the Wharfedale rail users group whose professionalism has impressed the professionals and whose suggestions have resulted in the improved scheduling of trains. The Ilkley line is popular with travellers but its viability is not enhanced by the way that section 20 agreements between the PTE and BR require the whole of the track costs to be borne by the former because the line is not part of the BR network.
The details of section 20 agreements are being re-examined and I hope that some benefits will result. In the meantime, I believe that the PTE should operate its fare structure on a more commercial basis. The local railway provides a fast alternative to the congested roads for which many people would willingly pay a realistic fare if that helped to retain the service. People need the service to be reliable and seats to be available. Lately, both timing and the number of coaches available have fallen well below acceptable levels. I hope that things will improve in future.
I have some good news for my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the likely effects of the Transport Bill for which he was responsible. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen a letter from County Councillor John Tweddle, who is the Conservative spokesman on transport on the county council. In the letter Mr. Tweddle refers to
The latest information on the charges which the Transport Act 1985 is bringing about to bus services in West Yorkshire.
He states:
The west Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have just informed Councillors that commercial network mileage has been increased from 55 per cent. previously assessed to 75 per cent. of the current mileage. This improvement is to be achieved as a result of better service planning, faster journey times and improved staff productivity following the new cooperation from the Trade Unions. National Bus Company Subsidiaries operating in west Yorkshire, have not yet told of the extent of the commercial network that they intend to register".
Nevertheless, the sort of improvement in the commercial network mileage, together with the cost savings on the rest of the network due to tendering, is obviously going to save passengers and ratepayers a substantial amount in the future.
Mr. Tweddle concludes his letter by writing:
The claim of the white paper and in debate now looks set to be achieved scorning the mis-information and scare-mongering of opponents to the Transport Bill.
That is encouraging news indeed.

Mr. Peter Snape: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the spokesman of the Conservative group was County Councillor Tweddle, or was that the content of the letter from which he quoted?

Mr. Waller: County Councillor Tweddle is a man for whom I have the highest regard. I always found what he has to say about transport, in which he is a specialist, of extremely high quality. The hon. Gentleman will probably see more of Mr. Tweddle in future. He has already been a parliamentary candidate, and is undoubtedly destined for even higher things than the outgoing metropolitan county council.
One of the more obvious benefits of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils was the opportunity it gave the districts to take responsibility for highways. There is a good case for some services still to be provided on a countywide basis, for example research, and work on major strategic traffic management schemes. Nevertheless, I am surprised that some district councils in west Yorkshire are effectively throwing away the opportunities that they were handed by reorganisation by continuing to join together on a countywide basis to operate highway functions voluntarily.
I am glad that Bradford has opted out of that retrograde scheme, and I believe that it will benefit in future by so doing. If the old county borough was capable of running its highways, the much larger metropolitan district with a population as large as some counties should certainly be able to do so effectively.
One of the most important trunk road schemes in the offing is the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth scheme. The need for a strategic link between the M1 and M62 south of Leeds, and north Yorkshire and the north-east remains. Much national and local traffic must use a variety of roads which are unsuited to the flows that they must carry. There was a good case for a route to the west of Leeds which would have benefited Bradford and provided an alternative to the dangerous route north from those cities to Harrogate and Ripon. But we did not get the cake with the icing, and because the inspector did not recommend the construction of the entirely new section south and east of Leeds either, we have got only half of the alternative rather plain cake.
Now new alternatives are to be examined, and that process should be carried out quickly. The problem exists today and we cannot wait many more years for it to be properly resolved, even if the necessary improvements on the A1 are to go ahead.
I welcome the fact that active consideration is being given to the construction of an eight or nine mile link between the M1 near Wakefield, possibly between junctions 39 and 40, and the M62 at junction 25 near Brighouse. I have been pressing for that scheme for many years. Two or three years ago I was told by officials in the Department that it was a non-starter, but I am pleased that it is now considered that it may pay its way.
The scheme would bring considerable benefits to the western districts of west Yorkshire. It would provide a faster, more convenient route between the M1 and Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford, would cut several miles off the journey between the M1 and the M62 to the west, and would relieve the A638 through Heckmondwike and Cleckheaton—towns which I had the honour to represent before the last general election but which I no


longer represent. The traffic in those towns was considered sufficiently bad to merit the construction of relief roads which have now been deleted.
This new route would also relieve the A644 through Mirfield and traffic would be able to use an alternative to the unsuitable, and in parts narrow, A637. It would enable the largest proportion of traffic linking between the M62 and M606 at the Chain Bar roundabout to do so without having to negotiate that roundabout—it is about half a mile around that large circuit. The Calder Valley link would have environmental, safety and economic benefits which would justify its early approval and construction. I hope the results of the analysis will prove favourable.
For my constituents the Airedale route is of great significance. It is a vital route for the future prosperity of the Aire valley towns, especially Keighley. When the route is complete it will mean that there will be a fast link between Keighley and the motorway network. At present in peak times it can easily take an hour to cover 15 miles. It is possible to get from south Bradford to Manchester more quickly than it is possible to reach the north-western parts of the district. That route, which has been on the stocks not just for years but decades, is essential.
The final obstacles to the construction of the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section—the most westerly part of the route—have now been cleared and I hope that construction will start this summer. There has been a recent announcement about the Victoria Park-Keighley-Crossflats section. That will mean the loss of about 13 per cent. of the Victoria Park at Keighley, but I do not think, as some fear, that the annual gala and show at Keighley, which are important events for the town, will be threatened too much.
The Crossflatts-to-Cottingley Bar section extending to the east of Bingley will go ahead eventually. There is a question about what will happen between Cottingley Bar and the Shipley eastern bypass. This will link with the Bradford central spine road and the motorway system. I have serious doubts about the consultative process which was carried out some time ago. I do not think that adequate opportunity was given for the people living outside the immediate area to express their views as there would have been under a statutory inquiry. I carried out a survey of Keighley firms which clearly showed that the overwhelming majority regarded the route as important and thought that it was essential that there should be a new route skirting Saltaire and Shipley. Those questioned did not think that any alternative would prevent traffic jams.
An alternative to the new route would probably rely on traffic management and perhaps on one or two short new sections, but all this would only create an almighty snarl-up which would strangle Saltaire—an outcome which those who wish to protect Saltaire fear. The anticipated traffic figures which I have been given by the Department of Transport do not add up. Even an incomplete Airedale route would draw traffic away from routes such as the A629-A644 through Denholme and Queensbury and the B6144 across the moors. I feel that there could be a botch-up and I am waiting anxiously for the announcement, due this summer, of the outcome of inquiries into alternatives. I note that I am supported in my view by Bradford council and the West Yorkshire metropolitan council. It is a sensitive matter.
Among the villages which have waited long—I will not say patiently—for a bypass, Addingham, on the borders of my constituency, features prominently. At long

last, the detailed route has been announced. I believe it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the village residents who wish to see the bypass constructed as soon as possible.
Obviously, the objectors have every right to have their say, but I hope that their number will be few and that the statutory procedures will be carried through as speedily as possible. The road winds through the village in an attractive way that is suited more to the horse and cart than to today's juggernaut. The completion of the bypass, which will be partly hidden in a cutting will bring blessed relief to the villagers, who often have to jump for their lives, and have been kept awake at night by the rumble of heavy traffic.
The Leeds-Bradford airport has a catchment area twice the size of that for Newcastle or the east midlands, but has only about half the throughput of those two airports. It has great potential. For instance, it could carry a great deal of postal business, some of which used to be diverted through Speke airport at Liverpool. Last year, the operational income of Leeds-Bradford airport increased by 24 per cent., mainly as a result of increased business. There was a 10 per cent. increase in air freight, and a 14 per cent. increase in passenger trade. However, it has had to turn away much business in the past two years because of the ban on take-offs and landings after 10 pm. The question whether there should be take-offs and landings after that time is a sensitive issue, and I do not want to come down on one side or the other, but it is fair to investigate the matter, bearing in mind that most of the present generation of quiet aircraft were not in existence when the public inquiry took place in 1979.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for reverting briefly to the subject of rail. This is not a part of the British Rail or PTE network, but the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. I take a particular pride in that scheme, as did my predecessor as Member for Keighley, Mr. Bob Cryer. The railway is run in a very professional way, although it depends on volunteers and fare-paying passengers, and the subscriptions of members of the preservation society among whom I am proud to be counted. The figures that have just reached me show that in 1985, 148,500 miles were covered by locomotives on the railway, a large proportion of them under steam. Not only do people come from far and wide to work on the railway, or travel on it as tourists, but some use it as a commuter service from Oxenhope and the famous village of Howarth down into Keighley and on into Bradford and Leeds. The railway is more expensive to run than an ordinary railway because it is a steam railway. Over £40,000 per annum has to be spent on coal alone.
I am glad that in the past couple of days, a pie-in-the-sky scheme to build a tramway and transport museum on the other side of Bradford seems to have run into the buffers. It was an over-ambitious scheme on which the West Yorkshire metropolitan council has already spent some money. It was never a realistic scheme, and my view is that it would have confronted head-on the voluntary efforts of people on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. I had appealed for somebody to say no to the scheme, which would have eaten up a great deal of ratepayers' money, when they are already suffering from increased rates.
I have taken my hon. Friend the Minister and the many other hon. Members in the House at this time on a tour of the transport facilities in at least part of the county of west


Yorkshire. I hope that I have shown that transport is vital to the future of the county. During the next few years, it will be even more vital for the system to improve.

Mr. Peter Snape: I would be stretching credulity to its limits if I said that the House was grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for raising these matters at this time in the morning, but it does at least give us the opportunity to debate the transport infrastructure of west Yorkshire, for which, regardless of the lateness of the hour, we should be grateful.
I found much of what the hon. Member said fairly unexceptionable, except that, like a loyal parliamentary private secretary, it contained not a shred of criticism of Her Majesty's Government or their policies.

Mr. Waller: I am afraid that my horse was shot from under me when my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was struck down in mid-flight.

Mr. Snape: It was a regrettable episode, and I am sorry that the striking down in mid-flight of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) had such an enormous impact on his stable lad as well.
I thought the speech was more loyal than accurate, and it did not address itself to financial problems which the west Yorkshire conurbation will face, particularly after the abolition of the county council.
It is fascinating to hear some Tory Back Benchers talk about transport. The hon. Member for Keighley said that he would have difficulty in advocating subsidy for uneconomic trains. He said that he would not attempt to justify any grant to British Rail's inter city services after 1988–89, although he welcomed the east coast mainline electrification. A few minutes later, he demanded the expenditure of literally millions of pounds of public money on roads in the county wherein lies his own constituency. He wants a link between the M1 and the M62, and a link between the M62 and the M602, if I have the numbers right. This is millionss upon million of public money for the road network. Despite what Councillor Tweddle said about the future of buses in west Yorkshire once deregulation gets under way, presumably those of his constituents who do not have motor cars will spend their leisure hours watching all the bulldozers creating the new motorways, or better—or perhaps worse from their point of view—watching all those lovely lorries nose to tail on those two motorways.

Mr. Waller: If the hon. Gentleman recollects, he will remember that I suggested that there would be an economic return on the motorways or new roads that were built whether they are analysed by means of the Department's COBA system or any other system.

Mr. Snape: There is no doubt that, left to itself, the Department of Transport could find an economic return for a road through the Sahara desert. The day the Department of Transport under any Government and under any Minister evaluates road schemes in exactly the same way that it does rail schemes, or vice versa, I will start believing in some of the statistics which emanate from that Department. The justification for building roads can be, and is, churned out year after year under successive Governments. It is only railways that are not supposed to

be subsidised or, if they are, the subsidy has to be so transparent that people like the hon. Gentleman can complain about it provided, of course, that the subsidy will not go to railway lines in and around his constituency.
The real meat of the debate, which the hon. Gentleman failed to reach, is what will happen to public transport in particular in west Yorkshire over the next few years.

Mr. Waller: It will be better.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that it will be better. He did not offer a shred of evidence to say that that is true.
I will try to put some evidence before the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to indicate that the reverse is true. On 12 February this year the Department of Transport issued a press release. It set the expenditure limits and the maximum precepts for all the passenger transport authorities, including the hon. Gentleman's, west Yorkshire. The limit was set on development at 26·51p. The preliminary expenditure limit for west Yorkshire had originally been set at £57·8 million and was redetermined to £61·3 million, giving that precept level of 26·51p. In the opinion of west Yorkshire county council, although I do not know what Councillor Tweddle thought about it, the approximate precept necessary to meet the PTA's own expenditure proposals, according to the Government's press release, was 34p. There is a considerable difference between the two of around 6 per cent. The hon. Member for Keighley blithely ignored those financial realities, so anxious was he to prove how wonderful a Minister is his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. Therefore, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State how west Yorkshire is to meet all the commitments that the hon. Member for Keighley just skated over, given the fact that its expenditure limit has been set at that level.
The press release then quoted what the Secretary of State for Transport had said:
This Order at last puts a stopper on the amounts which metropolitan ratepayers have in the past had to fork out year after year to subsidise wasteful public transport policies.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Keighley thinks that the west Yorkshire passenger transport authority has been guilty of supporting wasteful public transport policies or whether he agrees with me that that is just the kind of ideological claptrap that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been expounding for far too many years.
The kind of nonsense that the Department of Transport indulges in nowadays was amply illustrated in a picture that appeared only a few days ago in a newspaper. The newly appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was no doubt set up by his civil servants to pose under Barton bridge on the other side of the Pennines. There is a £20 million scheme to widen that bridge from two lanes to three. There is no shortage of cash for that scheme, despite the fact that the Minister will tell us how hard pushed the Government are in meeting all their economic commitments. However, when it comes to public transport in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley, I am afraid that cash is so tight that, again in the words of the Secretary of State for Transport, the wasteful public transport policies of the west Yorkshire public transport authority cannot be paid for.
The impact of those restrictions on the precept limit for west Yorkshire are grim. In fact, they are grimly


enormous. The hon. Member for Keighley said that discussions are taking place on certain section 20 services. That is ne way of putting it. He might have said that Mr. Bill Cottham, the west Yorkshire passenger transport authority's director-general, has intimated total withdrawal of section 20 support for no fewer than six railway services in west Yorkshire. They are Huddersfield to Denby Dale; Huddersfield to Wakefield; Leeds, Castelford, Knottingly and Goole; Leeds to Ilkley, Bradford to Ilkley and—this is a route in which the hon. Member for Keighley might be interested—Bradford to Keighley.
It is strange—

Mr. Waller: rose—

Mr. Snape: I shall give way in a moment. It is strange that in his paeans of praise for what the Government are up to the hon. Gentleman did not mention that fact. He said that discussions were taking place about the withdrawal of section 20 support.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There is no question of section 20 support being withdrawn from half the routes to which he referred. I understand that Mr. Cottham is bailing out of trains altogether and that he is going to run the bus company, now that the system has changed, following the passage of the Transport Act 1985.

Mr. Snape: I understand that West Yorkshire is bailing out of trains and intends to run buses in future, for reasons that I shall come to. No less than half of West Yorkshire's local railway passenger services are either up for closure or are suffering drastic cuts in service quality.
Over the past few years West Yorkshire has been positive towards its rail services. Passenger numbers on the services that I have mentioned and on others supported by the PTE have grown in contrast to an overall decline in the number of people using the buses. Many rail services have gained passengers following the opening of two new stations and the county has bought some new diesel trains. All these policies are now being put into reverse. Because of the Government's expenditure savings, the county council estimates, on my information that up to half the existing network and one third of train miles at present operated by the PTE could be reduced or withdrawn completely.

Mr. Waller: Could.

Mr. Snape: Yes, "could", according to the director-general. I do not want to insult the hon. Gentleman, but if I were told one story about the future of rail services in the county by the director-general of the PTE and a different story by the hon. Member for Keighley, even at the risk of upsetting the hon. Gentleman at 4.39 in the morning, I would put my trust in the professional rather than in, I shall not say the bumbling amateur, but, on his performance this morning, the grovelling amateur, the hon. Member for Keighley. He will have to accept that there are severe funding problems for the section 20 services in the county. Those problems are likely to lead to a switch from rail travel to bus support.
I always like to be fair about these matters. The Minister will be the first to concede that BR is far from blameless on the future of West Yorkshire's railway services. Again, Government targets on inter-city profitability have, according to BR, forced it to transfer inter-city services from the former Midland line, Leeds

and York to Sheffield, even though that line has been extensively modernised. The Midland route's long term costs must now, according to BR, go to freight and regional passenger trains, most of which are assigned to the West Yorkshire PTE. West Yorkshire, understandably given its financial constraints, refuses to pick up the bill. So again there are financial problems for the recently modernised former Midland railway line.
Closure hearings have already taken place for the southern section from Normanton and Wakefield to South Yorkshire. New advance closure notices under section 54 cover the section from Normanton and Castleford to Leeds. They would lead to the closure of two commuter stations, Altofts and Woodlesford. That would mean the diversion of local Leeds-Sheffield trains and the circuitous and uncompetitive rerouteing of the Leeds-Knottingiey-Goole service.
Another line which the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his somewhat carefree tour round West Yorkshire's railways is the Settle-Carlisle line, about which a series of public inquiries is to be held in the near future. BR's closure proposal would withdraw services from one of the most spectacular and scenic railway lines in Britain. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that, but the withdrawal of that service will have a knock-on cost effect on the West Yorkshire section of the line around the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley. Surely that would aggravate the concern about the cost of lines from Leeds and Bradford to Keighley and Ilkley. It is already leading to drastic local service economies, with the retention of Leeds trains but a reduction in the Bradford services to a peak only service to Keighley. Those are the real financial problems for West Yorkshire, all of which the hon. Member for Keighley glossed over.
The chairman of the north-eastern transport users consultative committee, Mr. James Towler, recently said that his prime objective
is to see that the existing network, existing stations and, as far as possible, the existing services are maintained".
The TUCC has supported objectors' proposals for improved rail links. But fine words and TUCC reports might well, on past form, be ignored by the Secretary of State.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Oh.

Mr. Snape: I do not know why the Minister is saying, "Oh." It is worse than I have indicated. When a railway line in the Tunbridge Wells area was recently put up for closure, the TUCC said that considerable hardship would result to those using it. That did not bother the Secretary of State. He promptly decided to close the line, anyway.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Snape: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I urge him to reflect on his own actions regarding railway lines. In other words, if he proposes to rise to defend the Secretary of State, he should first defend himself because, when replying to a similar debate a fortnight ago, he told me that he had not declined to give permission for a line to be electrified. He said exactly the opposite to that, however, in a written reply to me about the Manchester-Blackpool line, a topic to which I shall be returning on Monday. Does he still wish to rush in to defend his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Mitchell: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead himself or the House into believing that my right hon. Friend had not taken full account of what was said by the TUCC in the case of the Tunbridge Wells-Erith line closure to which he referred. My right hon. Friend went so far as to secure the agreement of British Rail to provide a bus service from Groombridge—a town which might otherwise have suffered—direct to Tunbridge Wells. It would be wrong to give the impression that that town had been left isolated.

Mr. Snape: I did not say that the town had been left isolated. I said that the service had been withdrawn despite the recommendation of the TUCC and the hardship that would inevitably be caused to users of the line. Bus services do not normally last long when rail services are withdrawn, as the Minister knows. That has been the experience of the last 20 years.
The position in west Yorkshire is as I have described it, rather than the sunny, optimistic picture painted by the hon. Member for Keighley. We hope that despite the Government's interference with the right of locally elected representatives to opt for the transport system they want, BR will be able to keep things going at least until the next general election. But the future looks bleak indeed, even if the hon. Member for Keighley will not admit it.
Councillor Tweddle must be the only person to believe that bus deregulation will mean an increase in services. Not even the Minister, who at least tries to sound like an optimist, has claimed that. With bus deregulation and metropolitan county abolition—bearing in mind that about 26 per cent. of all BR's east coast main line passengers begin their journeys on feeder rail services—the Government's pulling of the financial rug from the west Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear passenger executives will undermine the financial prospectus for inter city routes and local passenger trains.
The situation is bleak indeed and I fear that the price of the Government's neglect—indeed, positive hatred—of local passenger services and transport initiatives in west Yorkshire may deprive the House of the privilege of the presence of the hon. Member for Keighley after the next general election. That will give him time to reflect that if he had protested a little louder and been a little less loyal to his party, west Yorkshire might have had better public transport services and he might still have had a seat in this House.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has spoken robustly on behalf of his constituents, as he always does. I am not sure that he would wish me to congratulate him on his good fortune, as it is 4.49 am
We have had an interesting and important debate. My hon. Friend mentioned the quality of Bradford's rail links and the rest of the rail network. I am aware of his and other hon. Members' anxiety about rail services to Bradford, especially the inter-city service. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) secured an Adjournment debate on rail services to Bradford last November, since when there has been correspondence.
I have accepted an invitation to visit Bradford next Wednesday, 19 March. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, like the hon. Member for Bradford, West has

been anxious for me to pay that visit, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) will be present. I can assure all three that I shall travel to Bradford by inter-city service, changing at Leeds and that the programme arranged for my visit will give me an opportunity to meet BR's passengers, and representatives from several interest groups, including the chamber of commerce, the university, the transport users' consultative committee and Age Concern, and to discuss issues of concern with the city council and Members of Parliament.
I have no doubt that the visit will be interesting and useful, but I must emphasise, as did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in reply to the Adjournment debate last November, that the quality and level of services on routes and their timetabling are entirely matters for the BR Board. Ministers have no powers to interfere. The Government have set a framework of objectives for the board. We have emphasised that rail services should be reliable, attractive and punctual at acceptable fares and charges. It is for the board to manage the network in the framework of those objectives. For the inter-city sector, we have set the board a commercial target. We have asked the chairman to ensure that it achieves a 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988–89 and said that, from 1 April 1988, the sector will not be eligible for public service obligation grant. That approach is consistent with the firm policy of successive Governments that there is no justification for subsidising inter-urban transport whether it is provided by rail, road or air.

Mr. Snape: Can I draw attention, in my tentative fashion, to the fact that the Department has subsidised road haulage for donkeys' years and shows every sign of continuing to do so, not least because, when their own figures show that the heaviest lorries do not meet their true track cost, the Government move the goalposts in an attempt to prove that they do?

Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps we could debate expenditure on roads and the contribution made by road users some other time. The hon. Gentleman jolly well ought to know that road users contribute considerably more than is spent on the road system. BR's inter-city sector is already under a strong challenge from airline and coach operators, and it is beginning to respond well.
My hon. Friend referred to the board's proposals in respect of the Wortley curve. I understand that an application for a judicial review of the board's decision not to implement the statutory closure proceedings for that stretch of line has been granted, so hon. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was worried about the future of the Wharfedale and Airedale lines. Both of them are supported by the passenger transport executive through section 20 agreements. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
As hon. Members will be aware, decisions on the level of financial support for local rail services in west Yorkshire are a matter for the passenger transport authority and its PTE. That is as it should be. PTAs and their executives are in the best position to judge the value of local rail services within the overall provision of public transport in their areas. The fact that the decisions rest with local bodies means that no one in Government can ever


give an absolute assurance of support for a particular service. However, if the PTE were to withdraw its support for the service, British Rail could not withdraw passenger services from the line unless and until the proposal had been considered in the statutory procedure and the Secretary of State had decided to give consent to the proposal. The procedure allows objections to be made and fully considered before the Secretary of State comes to a conclusion.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I intend to return to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and seeks to make, when I have dealt with other aspects of railways raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Minister, but he should not allow himself to read out such dishonest claptrap. Will he tell the House how it is possible for local people to make local decisions when his boss, the Secretary of State, issues press releases saying that he will stop what he calls wasteful public expenditure on public transport? To do that, he is deliberately restricting the money available, so preventing those local people from making local decisions.

Mr. Mitchell: Clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I had every intention of dealing with the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman spoke from the Dispatch Box. If he will allow me to take my speech in its proper sequence, he will find that I have great pleasure in rubbishing what he had to say when he addressed the House earlier.
Hon. Members have expressed disappointment with the fact that the British Rail Board does not propose to electrify the link between Bradford and the east coast main line. I understand that BR considered the case for electrifying the line between Bradford and Leeds in 1982, but found that it could justify spending only some £2 million to £3 million against an estimated cost for the scheme of £10 million.
It has been suggested that appraisals of possible electrification schemes, such as that between Leeds and Bradford, should not be determined solely on a commercial basis. We believe firmly, however, that BR's inter-city sector, where the responsibility for the Leeds to Bradford electrification scheme should fall, should operate and invest efficiently. In making investment proposals for the inter-city sector, BR must demonstrate a commercial rate of return.
West Yorkshire passengers, including Bradford ones, should benefit from the east coast main line electrification scheme, which will be completed to Leeds in 1989. I understand that, with the electrification scheme, BR has no plans to withdraw through services to Bradford. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that assurance. The services will be provided with the very latest rolling stock. The locomotive will be changed at Leeds.
The electrification of the east coast main line has a value of more than £3 million, which is the largest BR investment scheme for more than 25 years. BR was able to put forward a good financial case for the scheme, and we were glad to give it our approval. It is an example of our commitment to a modern and efficient railway system and it should bring significant benefits to the people of Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley also referred to the private steam conserved line—the Keighley and Worth Valley Line. I join him in paying tribute to the enterprising people who run preserved railways in different parts of the country. I have had the opportunity of visiting several of them. I was most impressed by the enthusiasm, skill and professionalism of those running such railway lines. I am a member of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway Preservation Society, and I have been involved with the Watercress Line. I join my hon. Friend in warmly congratulating those who are involved with the preserved lines.
My hon. Friend mentioned trunk road schemes in and around his constituency. We expect to start three important schemes in west Yorkshire in 1986. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that starts are planned on two sections of the Airedale route in his constituency—Kildwick to Beechcliffe and Victoria Park to Crossflatts. Those schemes are part of the improved trunk road for Aire valley. We also plan to start work on a much-needed bypass of Wetherby on the A1 following a decision in December on the Kirkhamgate to Dishforth proposals.
I acknowlege that the Airedale route is of prime importance. The new road links to the Aire valley are of considerable importance. My hon. Friend is disappointed with the decision, confirmed last year, to terminate the route at Cottingley Bar near Bingley, but the announcement made it clear that a new road through the Saltaire-Shipley corridor would be unacceptable to local people. Alternative routes were examined carefully, but would cause considerable environmental damage. Therefore, we see the need to concentrate on new sections that we can build plus improvements to the existing road east of Cottingley Bar. As my hon. Friend knows, we are already consulting on the form of junction arrangement at Cottingley Bar. The chosen design will be included in proposals for the Crossflatts to Cottingley Bar section. Publication of the proposals is planned for later this year.
We also plan to hold public consultation about improvements to the existing road east of Cottingley Bar and the Shipley eastern bypass, which will link the improvements being planned by the local authority in Bradford. My hon. Friend said that he was worried about some aspects of this. I shall draw his concern to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who has prime responsibility for roads.
Another important scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency is the Addingham bypass. I am pleased to note the interested local response to the exhibition of proposals. Many people share the view that has been expressed that work on this should be started quickly, but we must consider objections before reaching a conclusion about a public inquiry. A few miles to the west, but just in west Yorkshire, a bypass of Draughton is planned. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make an announcement on it in the spring.
On the A65, a bypass is planned for Burley in Wharfedale. We shall publish proposals for this during the summer. Many people are looking forward to relief from trunk road traffic. Improvements are planned on the A1 between Scotch Corner and the Bramham crossroads, at A64 junction north-east of Leeds. In west Yorkshire, in addition to the Wetherby bypass, we shall be publishing fresh proposals later this year for the section from


Bramham to Wetherby. I recognise the concern about conditions on the A1 south of Bramham crossroads, and we are considering it carefully.
The decision announced in the House on 6 December by my hon. Friend the former Minister of State to press ahead with A1 improvements was welcomed generally. But we also decided, following the inspector's recommendation, not to make orders for an M1 to A1 link to the east of Leeds. Therefore, a study will be carried out into the problems of through traffic in the communities in and to the east of Leeds. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads and traffic is considering the terms of reference for the study and he expects to make an announcement soon. He will also decide who will carry out the study. We fully acknowledge the need to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible about the next steps to be taken, but it is important to make a full assessment of the situation before reaching a conclusion.
Perhaps I could just assure my hon. Friend on a number of other aspects concerning trunk road schemes and studies in west Yorkshore, because other schemes are being prepared. A bypass of Drighlington is planned, and we published orders in January this year. This will provide relief to the village from heavy vehicles using the A650 to reach the M62. If a public inquiry is needed, it should be held towards the end of this year. We are also planning to provide a climbing lane on the M62 between junctions 24 and 25. The uphill gradient of this five kilometre section results in queues of slow-moving heavy goods vehicles. Our consulting engineers are now carrying out preliminary design work. We hope to start work late in 1987 or early in 1988.
My hon. Friend is now considering who should carry out two further studies in west Yorkshire. The first is on a possible link from the M1 south of Wakefield to the M62, providing an improved route for traffic from south Yorkshire to the west. The other is a study of the Wharfedale route to the A1 south. This is an important route from Leeds to the north-west. A number of bypasses have already been provided or are in the programme, but we need to decide how much more should be done.
There are also a number of smaller improvements about which I shall write to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend also raised certain matters concerning the Leeds/Bradford airport. Perhaps I can tell him that the White Paper "Airports Policy", published in June 1985, outlined the Government's commitment to maximise the potential of regional and local airports so that passengers with origins and destinations in the regions can use their local airports. Thriving regional airports also provide direct and indirect employment in the area, and benefit local industry by providing useful air services for business men and local air freight services. My hon. Friend particularly referred to the opportunities which he saw in connection with a postal service for the Leeds/Bradford airport.
The White Paper, "Airline Competition Policy", also made clear the Government's wish to see the new international services developed from regional airports. The Government are also active within the EEC in seeking to liberalise inter-regional air services.
The Government have also authorised unprecedented levels of capital expenditure for development. Leeds/Bradford has benefited from this. In the past four years, substantial capital expenditure allocations, totalling no less than £18 million, have been made, mainly for runway extension and its associated work, terminal extension and improvements, and so on. Phase two of the terminal extension is due to be completed this year, and approval for construction of phases three and four will be given when it is justified by the traffic growth and subject to the availability of PESC resources.
The Government's policy is to encourage the development of regional airports wherever this is justified by demand and return on capital. I hope that what I have said will give my hon. Friend some reassurance about the importance that we attach to regional airports, of which he has been supportive.
I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich, East. His usual woolly intervention, if I may say so, included an extraordinary attack on the Department of Transport for its assessment of the need for roads, and snide remarks about justifying a road even through the Sahara. I hope that those towns and villages awaiting bypasses will not fail to note the anti-road attitude of the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Labour party on the Front Bench in these matters. The hon. Gentleman referred to buses, and made what I thought were some rather cheap remarks, making play with the name of County Councillor Tweddle, who has well served the people whom he represents in his part of Yorkshire.
I am not in a position to comment in depth on the particular bus services registered as commercial because at his point we do no know precisely the extent to which the gross numbers break down compared with the existing situation. But it may interest the House to know that no fewer than 15,000 routes had been registered by 28 February as part of the commercial network nationwide.

Mr. Snape: That is a lot.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is about three quarters of the existing system, which is much higher than his hon. Friends suggested when they spent last summer trying to oppose our legislation to improve the buses. They claimed at the time that the legislation would lead to no bus services being registered, and now there are 15,000 examples of how wrong they were. Alternatively, they said that there would be great congestion because so many buses were being registered and so many services run in our city centres.
The hon. Gentleman asked how west Yorkshire will meet the level of service within the precept limit that has been set. That is a matter for the PTE in fulfilling the policies of the west Yorkshire PTA. The extent to which they will be able to achieve that will be not insignificantly affected by the efficiency and improvement that comes about in the existing bus services in that area, which everybody knows have substantial room for improvement.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the PTA may give a low priority to section 20 support for British Rail services. That is a matter of local priorities. It is a matter for the local authority, not the Government. If locally elected representatives responsible to local people choose to give a low priority to the section 20 arranged rail services, they must be answerable for that. Certainly there


will be those who will have a good many questions to ask should they seek to regard the provision of rail services in their area as a matter of such low priority that they propose to terminate them.
I understand that the PTA is proposing to cut bus services by 10 per cent. in order to avoid the small increase in the real level of bus fares. Again, that is a matter for it to justify. I might find it extraordinary that, while the level of bus fares is substantially below that in many other parts of the country, the PTA pursues a policy of keeping bus fares at an artificially low level, having to cut the network or even raise question marks about rail service rather than increasing the price of tickets.
However, that is not a matter for me to decide. It is a matter for local people to decide through their representatives and to justify to their electorate.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour-run PTA has kept fares at the same level for seven years, quite inefficiently, and that even when more money became available it used it to reduce fares in the peak periods and to make special offers to people to attract them on to buses that were already full? The same thing applies to trains. At a public meeting that I attended to discuss the train service on the Wharfedale line, it was clear that people were willing to pay more in order to keep their trains but that they were being prevented from doing so by the PTA which, instead, thought about cutting the service.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that there could be a more succinct summary of the extraordinary lack of reasonable priorities than has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in winding up this debate.

Women Doctors (Obstetrics and Gynaecology)

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is always a pleasure to speak in this House, and never more so than at 5.15 in the morning. This debate is about the dangers to patient care caused by the way in which the medical establishment has treated Wendy Savage and Pauline Bousquet. It is Pauline Bousquet who asked me to raise this issue, because she is desperately concerned about obstetrics and gynaecological care in Hackney.
I believe that there are five main strands to the current argument, and it is important to disentangle them. First, there is the conflict between those who say that mothers should have a real say in the method of childbirth and those who argue that it is for the doctors, the experts, to decide. Secondly, there is the argument about natural childbirth versus high-tech childbirth. I believe that that argument is misleading, because there is no doubt that both Wendy Savage and Pauline Bousquet have used high-tech methods when such methods have been needed. Thirdly, there is the right of people in the medical profession to dissent from establishment views, whatever those views may be, at any particular time. Fourthly, there is the issue of the right of women doctors to participate as equals in the National Health Service and to question the chauvinism and old-fashioned attitudes of the male establishment towards its female colleagues. Finally, there is the issue of personal ambition, spite and pique, which tends to give the lie to the image created about the medical profession by "Emergency Ward 10" and similar soap operas.
I think it is disturbing that Wendy Savage and Pauline Bousquet are both women, both in trouble, both in the east end and both work in old established hospitals. We must ask ourselves whether that is just a coincidence, or whether it is a symptom of a much wider problem in the National Health Service. Wendy Savage is a senior lecturer at the London hospital. She, in effect, has been put on trial in relation to her clinical judgment in a way in which none of her male colleagues could ever have expected or would be expected to be put on trial. She has faced five weeks of hell, and she now has several months of waiting to find out whether she will get her job back. She has been the subject of the most terrible gossip and rumour, which shames the medical profession. Her trial has been manifestly unfair and manifestly unnecessary, and it is appalling that the Health Service has been made to do without her services over this recent period and dreadful that the local community, which supports her, has lost the use of her services, simply because she has radical views which she boldly states and honestly puts into practice.
The main case that I want to talk about concerns Pauline Bousquet. She is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist who used to work at the Mothers' hospital in Hackney. In 1975, rumours began to circulate about her ability to do her job properly. I regret to say that they were caused by her colleagues who did not like the way in which she was treating her patients. One of the things they did not like was the fact that she had long consultations with her patients. Mr. Hudson, who has recently been reappointed as a consultant at St. Bartholomew's hospital,


behaved unprofessionally and introduced bad blood into the medical system. He was largely responsible for the rumours that began to circulate at the Mothers' hospital.
In 1978 Pauline Bousquet ceased to be invited to certain meetings at the hospital. She was worried about the haste which had been introduced into childbirth at that hospital. She was concerned about the use of drugs and epidurals to speed up labour, which she thought precipated in certain cases the need for caesarean operations.
In 1978 Mr. Hudson left the Mothers' hospital, but before leaving he wrote a letter complaining about Miss Bousquet's conduct. Miss Bousquet says that that letter was a load of "manifest nonsense." The medical establishment began to take some of the complaints seriously. In 1979 Dr. Murphy, the area medical officer, wrote to Miss Bousquet calling into question her professional ability. He had received complaints from Mr. Crocker, who is now a consultant at Norwich, and Mr. Glyn Evans, who is a consultant at the Mothers' hospital. The complaint about Miss Pauline Bousquet was 22 pages long and involved eight cases.
I regret to say that it looks as though, from the evidence that Miss Pauline Bousquet has given me—she has shown me all the documents, except for the names of the patients on them—that Mr. Crocker and Mr. Glyn Evans made statements in their complaints which were untrue and could not be substantiated by the medical notes. Of course, it is the medical notes that provide the main evidence in these cases. It is deeply regrettable that those two highly professional people made the same errors which could not be justified by the medical notes. That suggests that malice was involved and that it was not just a mistake. They could not have made the same errors unless one person copied from the other. They were not making the proper independent professional assessment that one would expect in such cases.
I am concerned at the fact that there may be, in the NHS, consultants who are prepared to operate in that way with respect to their colleagues. That is not the way in which professionals in any service should operate. There should be an investigation into the conduct of those two people. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to encourage the district health authority to set up such an investigation.
Pauline Bousquet asked two professors to go through the eight cases raised against her. They have done so and have concluded that her conduct could not be faulted and that the care she gave to all her patients was good.
The district health authority, especially Dr. Grant, has said that it does not question Pauline Bousquet's professional or clinical conduct. Whereas Dr. Murphy, the area medical officer at the time, was prepared to hold an inquiry into Miss Bousquet's conduct until she proved that it would be nonsense to have such an inquiry, he was not prepared to hold an inquiry into the conduct of some of her colleagues when attention was turned to their professional ability. That is worrying for the people of Hackney.
As I understand it from professional people concerned with obstetrics in Hackney, in three of the cases serious question marks were raised over the treatment received by the mothers. Those were the cases undertaken by Miss Husband and by Mr. Crocker, whom I have mentioned. However, perhaps even more important is that subsequently question marks were raised over the care given in another 11 cases, and those cases date from 1975

to 1983. The quotations that I have concerning those cases are: "babies were seriously at risk", "some appalling things were happening", and "in one case a baby died". I believe that there ought to be an inquiry into the 11 cases, and I ask the Minister to help in that. We want reassurance in Hackney for mothers in the way that they are cared for when they are pregnant.
In July 1980 Miss Bousquet gave up her emergency rota at the Mothers' hospital. She was not quite clear what was involved in giving up that emergency rota, because almost immediately a number of the consultants refused to deal with her cases and she lost them all. One result of that was that by September 1980 a rather appalling situation had arisen in Hackney.
I have a copy of the minutes of the Hackney health council at that time, and they say this in connection with the Mothers' hospital:
Thus only 50 per cent. of the patients were under consultant care, the remaining patients being under the care of registrars and this was very unsatisfactory.
I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that that situation will not arise again in Hackney. It is disgraceful that only 50 per cent. of the patients were then under consultant care.
To sum up my position on obstetrics, as opposed to gynaecology, I make the following requests. First, I should like an inquiry into the conduct and motivation of Mr. Hudson, Mr. Crocker and Mr. Glyn Evans. Their conduct should be examined, because it would appear that they have badly blackened the character of Miss Pauline Bousquet, and that is tragic. Secondly, I believe that there should be a clinical inquiry into the behaviour of Miss Husband and Mr. Crocker and those consultants who were concerned with the 11 cases to which I have referred. Thirdly, I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that there will not be a recurrence of the situation where 50 per cent.—or indeed any—of the mothers in Hackney find themselves without consultant care when they are expecting.
Although there is an inquiry going on at present into Miss Pauline Bousquet's case, that in no way concerns obstetrics, which is the issue about which I have been talking so far. That inquiry concerns gynaecology. Therefore, we need the inquiry for which I have called.
I should now like to discuss briefly gynaecology and the case of Miss Pauline Bousquet. Over the past few years Miss Bousquet has had most of her gynaecology work taken from her. She lost her out-patients at St. Leonard's hospital when that hospital was closed down, she subsequently lost her two clinical sessions at St. Bartholomew's hospital, and since 1984 she has not been allowed to operate at St. Bartholomew's.
There is now a curious situation, whereby this highly skilled and able consultant is employed to carry on nine gynaecology sessions a week, but in fact carries out only two of those sessions. It is absurd that the Health Service can waste talent in that fashion. It is even more absurd when one realises that Miss Bousquet has the support of the British Medical Association, local doctors, local people and the community health council.
Miss Bousquet has had strong backing from the British Medical Association, which believes that the district health authority has behaved badly towards her and breached the conditions of her contract. Mr. Peter Forster, the industrial relations officer of the BMA, wrote to Dr. Grant saying:


As a consultant, it is essential for Miss Bousquet to maintain a close contact with her specialty and to remain abreast of all current developments which occur within her specialty, as well as the obvious need for her to practice her requisite skills. Therefore, it is, I would argue, incumbent upon the employing authority to provide her with an adequate level of work.
In other words, if the NHS gives her a contract of employment, it is no good Dr. Grant appearing on television, as he did the other night, and saying that Miss Bousquet gets paid. She does not want money for nothing. She wants to do her job. She is a highly skilled gynaecologist and should be allowed to work.
The medical establishment at Barts, as part of this long 10-year attack which has destroyed Miss Bousquet's reputation, is undoubtedly about to make this lady doctor redundant. It is all very well for Dr. Grant, whom I know and respect, to say that it is rationalising the services. It is putting this consultant out of work. The district health authority is behaving unjustly to an individual.
There is a smell of an obstetric cover-up in Hackney. The Minister should ensure that it does not take place, so that mothers can have their babies, knowing that they will receive the best treatment. Finally, patients have been denied some of the skilled and vital care that they need. It is time that the district health authority, helped by the Minister, acted on the matter.

Dr. John Marek: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) for tabling this important debate, which raises a matter of concern to his constituents in east London, and congratulate him on having the debate selected sufficiently early for us to spend some time on it. He has dealt mainly with the case of Miss Bousquet, and I should like to talk about the background to the case of Mrs. Wendy Savage.
An inquiry has just finished and we are awaiting its decision. Both cases are about gynaecology and obstetrics, and how women wish to have babies. Should women be told, mainly by men doctors, how they should have babies, or should they be allowed more freedom? Mrs. Savage says that there is no good evidence to show that having a baby at home is more dangerous than having it in a hospital. She says that many facilities are inadequate, and that we as a nation do not use the skills of midwives sufficiently. Nevertheless, her claims and practice appear to have passed unrecognised by her colleagues, and she has been suspended and has had to go through a traumatic inquiry which will cost a large sum.
I do not have the advantage of my hon. Friend of representing the area and being conversant with the details of the cases. My opinion comes solely from reading what the responsible press has written. The legal costs were estimated at about £50,000 in November. By the end of the inquiry the press estimates that the legal costs may be £150 ,000.
Does the Minister think that such inquiries should be allowed to take place in the future? Mrs. Savage will be saddled with enormous legal costs, approaching £150,000, because of an inquiry into medical practice and principle. There should be a procedure for carrying out this type of inquiry without the burden of cost falling upon one person. The month-long inquiry has now finished.
The challenge was the suggestion that there was entrenched conservatism—I hasten to add with a small c—within the medical profession and that that was responsible for the poor service that many woman received

in east London. Mrs. Savage criticised certain middle-aged obstetricians whose senior registrars had to cover for them because they were busy in Harley street.
The Tower Hamlets health authority cannot escape criticism for this ponderous procedure. The health authority was threatened with legal action during the inquiry by Mrs. Denise Lewis. Mrs. Lewis was one of the patients whose treatment under Mrs. Savage was used by the authority as evidence of professional incompetence. Mrs. Lewis told the authority that she had no complaints about her treatment.
It transpired that three of the five women whose cases were being used as evidence against Mrs. Savage offered to give evidence on behalf of Mrs. Savage. The cases are being considered by the inquiry and we shall he anxious to learn the outcome. One may speculate about the cases but it appears that there is division on only one case.
Other problems appear to exist in east London. In February it was reported in the newspapers that the head of obstetrics at the London hospital wished to get rid of his senior lecturer, Mrs. Wendy Savage, as soon as she was appointed head of the department. This was Professor Jurgis Grudzinskas. This has been denied by the professor, but nevertheless, there must be bad blood between the various consultants who serve in that area. This cannot be good for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to find a solution.
A team which does not work in harmony, which is more concerned with arguments against a colleague and concerned to win those arguments and appear before tribunals and courts, cannot be caring for my hon. Friend's constituents. They are not receiving the service that they expect from the National Health Service.
The inquiry heard evidence from both sides but the majority of the evidence was in defence of Mrs. Savage. She was highly commended for her handling of complicated births. Dr. John McGarry, senior consultant obstetrician at the north Devon hospital commended her. Half way through the inquiry it became clear that Mrs. Savage lost fewer babies at or just after delivery than other consultants at the London hospital. In 1984–85 her overall perinatal mortality rate was 11·3 per thousand deliveries against 13·7 for the other consultants. This is significant. I am not saying that one should therefore disregard everything else, because one has to look at the individual cases used in the tribunal to make sure that there was no gross negligence in any particular case, because if there was, action has to be taken. However, it is significant that she lost fewer babies than other consultants.
The problems were compounded by the fact that the health authority used individual case notes, and there was concern that individuals could be identified by the details given to the tribunal. This may be slightly by the way of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised, but everybody will be concerned about this, and the General Medical Council also protested about the identification of patients at the inquiry. The matter was patched up, and eventually the inquiry started again. However, there are no guidelines or rules about how individual, confidential case notes can be disclosed to public inquiries.
I am sure that if my hon. Friend had been given certain case notes, with the names removed, he would not try to discover who the people in the notes were and correlate the cases with them. However, I would not put that past certain members of society, and certain members of the


press. Indeed, it could be said that the press has a duty to find out names, but it also has a duty to be responsible. It is important to make sure that confidentiality is preserved so that the press, and anybody else, no matter what their motives are, are unable to find out names relating to case notes, and the medical history of any individual person. Is the Minister satisfied that this cannot be done? If he is not, will he look into the matter, and, if necessary, issue guidance to health authorities as to how they should go about releasing confidential files, albeit without names on them?
The tribunal also heard about Mrs Savage's impossibly over-extended workload, which, it was claimed, interfered with the quality of care that she could give to cases. Professor John Dennis, the expert called in by the Tower Hamlets health authority, said that a redistribution of the workload at the London hospital "might be needed". I take it that that is a professional understatement of the case, if a man of his eminence says that, something needs to be done.
I do not want to enter into a debate about whether the NHS is properly funded—I am sure that we could debate that for many hours. However, I hope that we can agree that the demands on the NHS are always there, and new ones are always being made. The service will always be pressed because of the possibilities presented by medical advance, and it is disgraceful that Miss Bousquet, against whom no charges have been made, is not being employed to anything like full capacity. There is something wrong with the way that the Health Service is being managed in east London.
Mrs. Savage has also said that women were terrified of rumours of "knife happy" doctors. This might have been played up by the press, but that is the fear, because it is known that it is easier for doctors to perform a caesarean than to go through the problems of counselling and the more detailed and individual care that is required for natural birth. It is easy to see how such rumours can spread. In that part of London it appears to me that the consultants say, "Let's have a caesarian if there is any doubt about the birth. Whether one should take that attitude or the attitude of Mrs. Savage and Miss Bousquet is a matter of serious concern and for serious debate. It is a medical matter, and not one which should have been debated in a tribunal with a person's professional livelihood at stake. I should like to see that debate taking place in other journals such as The Lancet, and to be debated in conferences before any generally accepted decision comes out of it.
I move on now to the end of the inquiry, and I quote from The Guardian of 28 February 1986:
A maternity unit at a leading London teaching hospital takes so long to arrange emergency deliveries by caesarian section that it should be closed, the inquiry into the conduct of Mrs. Wendy Savage was told yesterday.
It continued:
Doctors should be able to operate on urgent cases in 10 minutes but at the London Hospital's Mile End branch, where Mrs. Savage is a consultant obstetrician, there could be an hour's delay, the inquiry heard".
If one is to have a caesarian operation, one should be ready and have that operation in five, 10, 15 minutes, and not have to wait for an hour while an anaesthetist comes from down the road. If what is reported is true, the Minister cannot be happy about the operation of the

National Health Service in that hospital. I hope that his Department will look at that and, if necessary, make the health authority there remedy matters.
It is clear that, if the department cannot arrange for a caesarian to be done at about 10 minutes notice, the unit should not be in business but should be closed. I do not want to see that department closed. If there is to be a unit there, it must have the proper facilities, and that means that caesarian operations ought to be available in 10 minutes if necessary.
The inquiry finished. Various professors supported Mrs. Savage. There was not very much evidence given against her, except perhaps on the one case of Mrs. A. U. Eventually it was said that Mrs. Wendy Savage's colleagues at the London hospital may have colluded to get rid of her.
This is a very difficult point. It is one to which the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch lend substance. I am of the opinion that there is a case here for the Minister to inquire into. The Minister ought to investigate what is going on in the Health Service in east London. Are there men consultants in the service who are conspiring together because they see Mrs. Savage and Miss Bousquet as irritants, as women, as people and as professionals who have a different view from theirs of how they should engage in and carry on their profession? I think the country would like to know the answer. I would like to know the answer. Is there such a plot, such a caucusing in the tea or coffee room by these men gynaecologists, because they want a nice, quiet, easy life when they do not have to think too hard about how babies should be delivered, and in what different ways they should be delivered? This may exist also in other parts of the country, but has not yet come to the surface. It is important because there is an issue of medical principle as to how we ought to run our hospitals and how much choice women should be given in having their babies delivered.
I hope that the Minister will look at these questions.
I do not intend to add anything to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said about Miss Bousquet, apart from the fact that the British Medical Association rightly support her case and that general practitioners in the area very much support her case. It is a tragedy that her talents are not being used to the full. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will look into this case and not wait until the tribunal has completed its inquiry and issued its judgment. The judgment will be issued in two parts. It will deliver judgment on individual cases of malpractice or negligence that have been brought before it. It will find either that there has been negligence or that there have been faults or that there has not been negligence or fault. The tribunal will also deal, I hope, with the general principle of how women should he treated in hospital. That is my main concern.
The Under-Secretary of State ought to consider that matter and find out what has been the role of the consultants and the health authority, and why it embarked upon this very expensive tribunal. I hope that he will publish the results of his inquiries to reassure the public that the National Health Service is acting upon principles that can be defended in public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State ought to issue guidance about the whole problem to all health authorities, but that is a different question. We shall have


to await the outcome of the inquiries that I hope he will undertake. If something has gone wrong in east London he needs to issue guidance. I hope that he will do so and look forward to what he has to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): There will be some relief among my Treasury colleagues and in the City that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has turned his distinctive attention, at least for the moment, from their areas of concern to those of the Department of Health and Social Security, although I am not so sure that the DHSS will share their relief. It is sad, however, that the hon. Member has brought to the consideration of this question the same technique of using the privileges of this House to make personal attacks on individuals—this time individuals in the National Health Service.
I do not intend to comment on the individual case of Pauline Bousquet. An inquiry is in progress, which goes back quite a long time. I do not intend to comment on the Wendy Savage case, either. The House knows that no decision has yet been announced, and it would therefore be improper for me to comment on that case.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, felt able to comment in quite so much detail and in such a manner about that case, given the stage that that inquiry has reached. I was not quite so surprised that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch felt that he was able to comment upon it.

Dr. Marek: I have not commented upon any private information that I may have. My comments were confined to what has appeared in the press. This inquiry is not sub judice. It is a tribunal of inquiry. I am sure that the tribunal is capable of dispassionately considering the case without being influenced by what either I or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will say in this debate.

Mr. Whitney: I am sure that there is no risk of the tribunal being influenced by what I shall say. I consider that it would be improper to make comments of any nature. But when the hon. Member for Wrexham reads what he has said in Hansard I think he will be surprised by how far he went in his comments.
The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the general question of this type of inquiry . It arises from procedures under what is known as HM(61)112. Action is required in serious cases which could result in dismissal. This may therefore involve setting up an independent fact finding panel of inquiry, chaired by a lawyer. The task of such a panel is to establish the facts concerned and to report to the employing authority. The panel may also, if asked to do so by the authority, make recommendations about disciplinary action to be taken against the particular doctor. That procedure has been in place for some time and hitherto has operated, as I understand it, to general satisfaction as a procedure.
The inquiry about Mrs. Savage was held in public, which is an unprecedented step for such an inquiry, and, not surprisingly perhaps, it attracted a great deal of media interest. Therefore, some issues have arisen, including the confidentiality of documents, to which the hon. Member

for Wrexham referred. In the aftermath of that inquiry we shall have to take account of the implications for the future, should such eventualities arise again.
Rather than dwell further on the two cases that were raised I should like to pick up one or two general points which arose in the contributions from the hon. Gentlemen. As for natural child birth, we believe and expect that all obstetricians should take account of the preferences of women whose delivery is under their care, as far as their professional judgment allows them to go. That is a policy which we support. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, it is a serious matter and a medical matter. I do not believe that the sex of the doctor should be important. It would be wrong to assume that only female doctors are capable of showing the sensitivity that is required.

Dr. Marek: What the Minister has just said is interesting. Would he care to comment upon whether women doctors should be available for those women who wish to be looked after only by women doctors?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, I am happy to come to that. Wherever possible we hope that that will be the case. Naturally the question of availability arises. I shall detain the House briefly so that I may set out the position as it is developing. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will recognise that it is developing in the direction which they want because there is an increasing number of women in the medical profession and in particular in the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology.
We recognise the preference of many women patients, especially those from particular cultures or traditions, to be treated by women doctors. It is Government policy—and we have made this clear both to health authorities and to general practitioners—that, wherever possible, arrangements should be made for patients to be seen by a female doctor when this is requested. For example, the chief medical officer wrote only last January to general practitioners and to health authorities pointing out that many women, particularly Asian women, have deep moral or religious objections to internal examination by a male doctor. The chief medical officer asked general practitioners to respect these sensitivities and, wherever possible, to refer such women to a female consultant and to stress that the patient should be seen by the consultant herself. That answers a point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
If health authorities and family practitioner committees are to be able to offer this choice, there must be a sufficient number of women doctors in all specialties. This is where the Department has particular responsibilities. It has been policy for many years that entry to medical school should be on the basis of ability alone, irrespective of sex. As a result, the proportion of women in the medical school intake has increased from 24 per cent. to 46 per cent. last autumn. Of course, it will take some years for that to feed through to the National Health Service. In 1985 the proportion of women among medical graduates was 41 per cent. The proportion in the most junior hospital grades was 34 per cent. The proportion in the career grades, in hospital and in general practice, was only 17 per cent. But in all grades the trend is, clearly, towards an increase both in the proportion and absolute number of women doctors.
In obstetrics and gynaecology, the focus of this debate, the trends are particularly encouraging. At present, only 12 per cent. of consultants in the specialty are women. But


looking at doctors in training—consultants in the pipeline, as it were—I note that 20 per cent. of senior registrars and over 40 per cent. of registrars, excluding those overseas graduates who are unlikely to make their careers in this country, are women.
Looking even further ahead, obstetrics and gynaecology appears to be one of the most popular specialties among women medical graduates. Recent research commissioned by the Department shows that nearly half of those graduates expressing a firm preference for the specialty were women.
Moreover, we should remember that not all obstetric and gynaecological care is provided by the hospital service. General practitioners and community health doctors deal with many minor gynaecological problems and provide family planning services. GPs also take part in shared care schemes and some take complete care of women throughout their pregnancy and delivery.
I am happy to report that the number of women entering general practice is also on the increase; the proportion rose from 13 per cent. of the total in 1975 to 19 per cent. in 1985. Women also provide over 60 per cent. of the staff in the community health services. All in all, women doctors already provide a very substantial proportion of obstetric and gynaecological care in this country, and will provide even more in the future. The situation is not nearly as bad as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch suggested in his characteristically alarmist speech.

Mr. Sedgemore: The Minister has give no reassurance about the treatment of women in Hackney in terms of obstetrics and gynaecology. He must have known, because of the number of occasions on which I have raised the matter, that it concerned Hackney. He has tried to hide behind the fact that, according to him, an inquiry is taking place. There is not an inquiry going on into obstetrics in Hackney. The inquiry is simply about the number of gynaecological sessions Miss Bousquet does. Why will he not answer the debate?

Mr. Whitney: I have made a clear statement. I will not answer individual cases, for the reasons I gave. The situation in the Health service as a whole is healthy, as I have demonstrated. The hon. Gentleman knows well that if he has any further comments or complaints about an element of a particular health authority, he is always at liberty to approach that authority.
The red herrings that the hon. Gentleman has sought to raise tonight are unjustified. The situation of women patients and doctors, in the important disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology, are secure and guaranteed. There is no cause for the degree of concern that the hon. Gentleman has sought to create.

British Leyland

Mr. Roger King: Many of the headlines in recent weeks have been about the problems facing the British Leyland operation in Britain and the allied factories and businesses which predominate throughout the country. My purpose tonight is to raise points that are worthy of close consideration because they affect the future prospects of that group of companies.
I wish, first, to examine the BL board, the body which has been charged with overseeing the development of a British-owned motor industry which fell on hard times because of many and varied problems in the late 1950s, through the 1960s and into the 1970s. Those problems stemmed from poor management control, hasty reorganisation, poor industrial relations and a failure to invest in the right product line. Above all, although its products were technically reasonable, they left a lot to be desired in terms of quality. The constant problem of under-investment left us prey to the world car industry, especially the Japanese, and the western European industry developed its industry during the same time with the aid of investment and new factories after the war.
The BL board has tended to remain somewhat distant from the day-to-day operations of its subsidiaries. It has allowed sector managers to get on with what they know best—running a business. We understand that there is to be a change in organisation. It was recently announced that Mr. Graham Day of British Shipbuilders will take over what may be left of BL in the middle of this year. Those of us who have been privileged to meet some of the BL executives, especially Mr. Ray Horrocks, question the wisdom of changing the leadership of the board at such a difficult time. Mr. Horrocks has been primarily responsible for the development of the car side of the business. Under his directorship, Jaguar has been successfully privatised and Austin Rover has been developed from chronic financial difficulty, poor product range and awful industrial relations to acceptable financial efficiency, exemplary productivity and a very good product range.
In 1980 the car side turned in a £250 million loss. In the first six months of 1985 a small profit of some £600,000 was registered. It is too early to get information for the whole year, but it seems that the company has done a great deal better than hitherto. The present problem is a growing lack of confidence in development of the business. Rumours about a tie-up with Ford or any other company has had a dramatic effect on the company's status in the market. The car business relies on customer confidence throughout the world. Although Austin Rover has only 4 per cent. of the European market, it is able to break even, whereas Renault, with two and a half times Austin Rover's market share, turns in a loss of about £1 billion a year.
The market has been improved step by step by improving customer confidence in the company's ability to supply the right vehicles of the right quality when they are wanted. That market has been created step by step as a result of improving customer confidence in the business by supplying the right sort of vehicles, at the right quality when they are wanted by the customer. The relationship between manufacturer and customer has been built up


painstakingly over the years, gaining the sort of confidence necessary to develop the market for that range of car products.
It does not take much to reduce that confidence, with a noticeable effect on the market. Commentators would not dispute the fact that since the beginning of talks about a possible Austin Rover group sell-off to Ford, or to any other company, its market share in this country dropped by about 2 per cent. in the first two months of this year. The winter months are critical for the business, and sales are hard to get. The compounded problem of lack of confidence in the business has a knock-on effect. The problems do not stem simply from reaction in the home or indeed the European market. There have been problems further overseas.

Mr. John Smith: Why does the hon. Gentleman not come straight out with it and say that the major problem facing the Austin Rover group is the Government's policy to encourage discussions with Ford? Why does he not have the courage to criticise the Government for what they are doing to Austin Rover?

Mr. King: I do not know whether I am grateful for that intervention. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for a few moments, and I shall have some constructive comments to make on that issue.
The problems of Austin Rover in moving into profitability stem from its lack of across-the-range models. It is strong in the small and medium-car sector, but not in the big executive cars, which in car parlance mean big profits.
The forthcoming development with Honda of Japan of the Rover 800 series should go a long way to improve the market position and profitability of the business, nowhere more so than in the United States. There are great hopes for a high level of product acceptability. Customer acceptance at car clinics has been almost uniquely high in relation to the product on offer. It is clear that the Americans, based primarily on their knowledge of Jaguar and their growing acceptance of that company's products, are ready to buy a British executive-type car and willing to pay a premium price for it.
The structure set up there by the president of Austin Rover America, Mr. Raymond Ketchledge, is such that sales of many cars should be obtained shortly. I understand that the cars that will be available for the United States will be only 50 per cent. of what the American president of the company said he could sell and would want. The primary concern of manufacturers is to ensure that all the cars that go to the United States, although not the number required, are fit for sale in that market, and of the high quality which that market rightly demands. I am certain that the factories can produce them.
All this solid, good work will improve the fortunes of the company. There is no doubt that American dealers are increasingly concerned, after rejecting Ford or General Motors dealerships, or any sort of dealership, because they do not want that particular product, that they might be dealing with a company partly owned by Ford or some other multinational, which they would find highly unacceptable. Some of the new dealers in America are hesitant to sign on the dotted line and draw up an agreement with Austin Rover until they are satisfied beyond all shadow of doubt that they are dealing with Austin Rover and not a derivative of a multinational.
Unfortunately, the rumours continue. Although we understand that no talks are envisaged with Ford, this week's Autocar has a headline in its business section, "Ford ready to reopen Austin Rover negotiations." Bob Lutz, the chairman of Ford Europe, said that his company was still interested in owning the company and was keen to continue negotiations. Mr. Lutz is clever, because he has decided that all he must do is to say that he is interested in purchasing part or all of Austin Rover and he can suddenly knock 2 per cent. off its home market share. He can shake customer confidence in Europe and the rest of the world as a result. It is hardly coincidental that Ford seems to be doing a little better in the market after its recent outbursts about being interested in getting its hands on Austin Rover.
We must have a clear understanding of the ownership of the business and whether it will be sold to or merged with another company. For the sake of the market place, sales and jobs, such rumours must not be allowed to continue. In the midlands we look with growing horror at the hesitancy and lack of confidence of the company. We hope that, at least in the medium term, the company will be allowed to develop as it is now, seeking to collaborate with overseas manufacturers, as it is doing with Honda, Volkswagen and Peugeot, to continue producing products which are increasingly accepted, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe and the rest of the world.
Production at the Austin Rover plants is increasing. In 1985 about 476,000 cars and car-van derivatives were produced. Although most commentators would say that that is below the level at which the company would generate enough income finance investment, it is getting close to that level. This year, two major events should help the company to achieve production of about 550,000 units. I have already mentioned the introduction of the Rover 800 series. The other event is the joint venture with Honda to produce the Honda Ballade car on the same assembly lines at Longbridge in my constituency as the Rover 200 series. The production figures for that model are modest, but an additional 10,000 cars a year would be extremely useful, bearing in mind the fact that one need only produce them, put Honda badges on the front and let Honda sell them in the European market. Gradually, production will exceed the all-important barrier of 500,000. I hope that it will continue to increase and improve the viability of the business.
Harold Musgrove and his team have worked extremely hard. Indeed, when the story of Austin Rover is written, it will include accounts of sacrifices by employees. I have heard that employees' marriages have gone adrift as a result of the work that people have done to turn the business round. When that account is written, it will be considered a success story. Of course the Government invested a large sum in the business, but it is equally true that they receive a great deal in return through income tax paid by the workers at Austin Rover and components suppliers and through company taxation.
A primary tenet of Conservative thinking is that one must speculate to accumulate. The time is rapidly approaching when Austin Rover will be able to accumulate the income necessary to provide for new models, and for the new investment which is essential for its continued well being. Again, this would not necessarily be done by Austin Rover on its own, because that is not the way in which a car company of the standing and size of Austin Rover would develop today. It would be done in


conjunction with other operators and manufacturers throughout the world, buying the best of the bits from elsewhere, producing them perhaps under licence here in its own factories, collaborating with other manufacturers in the market place, sharing its manufacturing facilities, but selling its cars through individual sales outlets. This is what Austin Rover will do with its Rover 800 in Australia, where it will be produced on Honda's assembly lines, and the Honda Ballade and the Legend, Honda's version of the 800 series, will be produced on United Kingdom assembly lines for distribution throughout Europe.
This is the way forward. It is an extremely sensible way. It is one that the company should be left to pursue on its own, so that it can develop its own future, not just in the market place, but with its own work force as well, members of which look with envy on the opportunities given to their Jaguar brethren who invested in their own business and have seen their investment grow quite staggeringly over the past four years. From those to whom I have spoken, I am certain that they would relish the opportunity in two or three years' time to take part in the ownership of the business, working together as owners and part-shareholders towards its continuing prosperity.
Mr. Ray Horrocks told one of our Back-Bench organisations the other night that he considered this a distinct possibility, that the business could be viable, working in conjuction with others, for privatisation, so as to allow the employees a share of the business. Again the question must be posed: will the market continue to have confidence in the development of that business; confidence, alas, which has been badly shaken over the past few weeks? For that the company is already paying a very heavy price. Only a firm commitment by the Government that they will continue to allow the business to develop on its own, using the management that it possesses to make the right and appropriate decisions for the various markets of the world, will allow that confidence to be restored totally so that the company can recover the market share that it has unfortunately lost in the past few weeks.
The bid by General Motors for another portion of the business—the Leyland Truck, Land Rover and Freight Rover organisation—has equally dominated the media recently. Bedford, General Motors' truck subsidiary, is as British as British can be, having been here for some 45 years or so, producing trucks. The British Army rides in its trucks now, just as Montgomery rode to El Alamein, so there is no question but that that company is a British business. Unfortunately, although General Motors has invested large sums of money in this country, these days one has to invest very large sums of money indeed to maintain a market share. General Motors' investment in Europe has largely come to be concentrated in countries like Spain and Germany, where more cars are produced than are produced in this country.
Although General Motors has, therefore, invested money in this country, it has not been enough to stem the rising tide of imports from other General Motors factories. One looks still with concern at the low British content of those Vauxhall cars that are made in this country. It is a job to justify 50 per cent. United Kingdom content in those products, even if one takes into account such things as heating and light and power in the factories that are

producing them. The result of this investment policy is that Bedford has been unable to invest in a new, modern range of trucks and its market share in this country—where once upon a time it was the dominant truck manufacturer—has dwindled to no more than about 11 per cent. One can compare this with Leyland Truck, which has had an enormous amount invested in it and which last month reached 16·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom market.
Leyland Truck faces problems. It would be no good ignoring the fact that the truck market is oversaturated within western Europe, with some 40 per cent. over-capacity. Some rationalisation would be sensible, and to everyone's advantage. General Motors' approaches to Leyland Truck are sensible and make a great deal of commercial sense. The management of Leyland Truck, and possibly even the work force, but certainly the dealers who handle the vehicles, would welcome a relationship so that the two combined organisations could well command about 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, which would turn that business, concentrating as it would, presumably, on the Leyland Truck factory in Lancashire, into one that was rather profitable, and certainly would act as a great stepping stone to re-establishing the British truck industry in European and world markets.
It has been said by many people that General Motors is interested in Land Rover and Freight Rover because if it were to purchase Leyland Truck it would find itself in some difficulty about what to do with its vacated Dunstable assembly lines, which would obviously come to pass, because rationalisation is the name of the game and production capacity would probably have to come out from there.
It is not necessary to expand Land Rover output at Dunstable or to move the Freight Rover van factory from Washwood Heath to Dunstable to make up any shortfall. General Motors could start assembling some of the 50,000 Vauxhall Novas that are brought in from Spain every year, or, indeed, improve its United Kingdom production levels of Cavalier and Senator cars which currently come from its Belgian and German factories. There is plenty of opportunity for that company to step up its investment in car production. I suggest that it turns its attentions to finding work for the vacant factory space in Dunstable, if Bedford trucks are to be made in Leyland in Lancashire. The company should look closely at expanding car output there.
In negotiations with people such as Bob Price, the head of General Motors, one is aware of an affable and knowledgeable person who I feel sure is open to firm suggestions from the Government as to how this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of all. If the Government were to talk meaningfully with Mr. Price and his colleagues, a satisfactory outcome for the present purchase of parts of BL could be arrived at.
I do not go along with the view that General Motors has much to offer Land Rover or Freight Rover. A massive amount of investment has been made by the BL board over the past 10 years in Land Rover production at the Solihull plant. Brand new factory space was built in the late 1970s and as a result of the closure of eight or nine satellite factories and the bringing together under one area at the Lode lane factory in Solihull, Land Rover production is now completely in house on one site and ready to exploit that advantage with better productivity and lower manufacturing costs.
Perhaps it is a bit early at this stage to reach any conclusion as to how Land Rover will develop until it has had a chance to produce vehicles for two or three years on its total site complex and we can see the sort of financial progress that the business is making. Certainly there are grounds for great optimism, after a year or so of setbacks, when the company faced real problems in overseas markets, particularly in Africa, where it was battling with the strong problems of a petro currency in Britain, which affected all exporters. That is now not quite such a disadvantage because of the falling price of oil, which has once again put manufacturing back to the forefront of our exporting achievements.
The opportunities for Land Rover, and for most of our motor industry now to get to grips with the export market, are unparalleled. The concern that we express is that we should now let those companies develop, given the challenge and the opportunities that they have, before we decide whether we want to sell them to some overseas buyer from America or anywhere else, or whether we should sell them to the employees. That would be the most sensible policy to pursue. I do not doubt that the privatisation of Land Rover, along the lines of Jaguar, could be a realistic proposal within the next two years or so, given the potential of that product and its potential in America.
Many people criticised the company for not having exploited its American potential before, but the history of Land Rover is such that it hoped it could exploit the American market. During the 1970s, British Leyland's main concern was to encourage car production for export, principally to the United States market, to tackle the problems of Jaguar. In those days the Triumph sports car, the MGB sports car and so on were exported to America and all the resources were used up on those product lines to ensure those cars reached the American market and there was nothing left for the fairly small number of Range Rovers which had been earmarked for that market. Therefore, by default Land Rover was never able to exploit that market.
One of the results of Land Rover's semi-independence to operate within the British Leyland organisation is that it has been working hard to get the Range Rover accepted in the American market. It is not just a matter of offering a vehicle to that market; it has to reach and maintain the federal emission standards, the standards of construction and so on, all of which take a considerable time to achieve.
Most people would suggest that the best way to go forward is by the use of specialised dealerships which are being set up in America. The Range Rover is a particularly expensive and exclusive vehicle, with a specialist attraction. Whether it will ever find a sensible position in the market and be sold alongside Cadillacs or Chevrolets is open to a wide degree of discussion. However, taking the advice of Porsche, which was not slow to exploit the American market, the correct way to exploit the market is to seek out specialist dealers—a handful in American terms, some 40 to 60 dealers—to major on the product concerned in a big way. That is what Jaguar is doing at the moment. Having the right investment, the right marketing factor and the right sales expertise is the way to exploit the American market. It should not be done by saturation coverage, which a tie-up with a multinational may or may not provide. Range Rovers are an exclusive British product and need to be marketed in that way. That is the

way that Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and Rolls-Royce are seeking to exploit the American market. I think that that is the way that Land Rover ought to develop, given the opportunity so to do.
I shall deal with the problems of Freight Rover. We hear a great deal about the problems of inner city factories and the problems of holding and maintaining work within the inner city area. The Government have invested considerable sums of money, and continue to invest such money, to find work within the inner city areas not only for our young people, but for all sections of the community. An inner city factory is like a gem. It needs to be looked after and kept. It is a priceless asset. Freight Rover is such a factory in Birmingham, at Washwood Heath. It provides about 1,800 jobs for the community. Not all the workers emanate from the inner city area, but a considerable number of them do.
Freight Rover shares a factory with Austin Rover and produces the Sherpa range of light vans. It has achieved a significant place in the market, with growth of about 2·4 per cent. in a very competitive market over the past 12 months. It is a financially profitable organisation and its work force has maintained a level of productivity and dispute-free performance second to none. The workers have made particular sacrifices, as they recognise that Freight Rover is the only job they have and probably the only job they will keep, if at all possible, because of the dearth of opportunities elsewhere within the area. Therefore, we attach great importance to the maintenance of Freight Rover within the area. It is not just the provision o jobs, but the product itself. The years of development stand the test in the market place. It is a product which is wanted and which is finding growing acceptance, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the European markets.
It is not a push button, robotic factory. The vans produced are bespoke vans—built to the specifications of customers, such as the Post Office, British Telecom, the civil defence organisations and the Army. Those organisations buy a van with umpteen additions, with special brackets, special hinges, and all the rest.
I worked in the van factory with Morris Commercial before it moved to Freight Rover. A standard van used to be taken from the assembly line to a special building. Holes were drilled in the van to take special brackets and fitments and extra doors. The vehicle was then sold. The trouble is that every time a hole is drilled in a vehicle once it has left the assembly line, a rust point is made. That cannot be stopped.
The advantage of fitting the bits and pieces on the assembly line and rustproofing the whole van—Freight Rover pioneered a brand new rustproofing process, which has been copied by many other commercial vehicle producers—is that the vehicle will maintain a six or seven-year rustproof period. That is extremely desirable and acceptable to the customer and gives the company a niche in the market place which other more robotic-oriented manufacturers of vans cannot provide. Robots cannot be taught to fit a little bracket here or there—it must be done more or less by hand. That is not to say that the company is lacking in technology. It has what it describes as "islands of technology", where robots are used for the basic welding of sub-components, body sides, and so on. The labour content is somewhat higher than in comparable factories because of the product that the company seeks to provide.
There is no doubt that if General Motors were to become involved in the business it would look carefully at Freight Rover. It has told me that it very much likes the prospect of having the opportunity of selling the 3½ tonne Sherpa van, which is only two and a half years old and would fill a gap in the market for its Bedford range. However, one cannot forsee the possibility of GM making those vehicles at Washwood Heath. It makes no sense to GM to share a corner of one of Austin Rover's factories, producing vehicles in conditions which are notideal. The factory space is cramped. One will not find any plush carpets, potted palms and twinkling fountains at Freight Rover. One will find a fairly compact factory in which every square metre of space is used. That is how it should be in a successful factory. The empty space of tiled floors is not a recipe for success. One looks to see how well organised and compact a factory is. Freight Rover is certainly that.
General Motors' ownership of Freight Rover must have grave consequences. General Motors has not been able to spell out its exact future for the business, saying only that the workers there may be deployed to Land Rover production at some stage. GM has not been able to assure us categorically that jobs at Freight Rover will be maintained.
What is the possibility of a management buy-out of Land Rover and Freight Rover? We have been assured that the merchant bank Schroder Venture, has come forward with the capital. It is confident that the business, according to market and sales consultants, can and will be a viable alternative. We have been assured that it can proceed on its own, funding its own resources with the possible introduction, within two years, of extra capital through partial employee participation and in the sale of shares to raise £50 million.
The bank is confident that the business can find the funding necessary to produce new models. There is a question mark over this because Freight Rover has new models which have been developed in the past three or four years. Even GM concedes that there is no immediate intention of providing new models. Of course all companies have to develop their existing product range and refine it ever further, and Land Rover is no exception. It is certain from the statements by Schroder Venture and the management buy-out team that they can find the resources to develop the new models. Freight Rover needs £80 million to develop a new van range for its introduction in 1990–91. That might be a large sum, but we must remember that it will be spread over a five-year period. That sum of £80 million will last in product terms for more than 20 years. Unlike the car business, where the vehicles must be updated every four or five years, a van will stay in production for something like a quarter of a century. Indeed, the existing Sherpa van is a derivative of a product that first saw the light of day in 1958 and, far from being unacceptable in the market place last year, the Sherpa had a higher market share than it has enjoyed in recent times.
The van market, therefore, does not change in quite the same way as the car market. The expenditure of £80 million for a product which will have a life of some 20–25 years is, I would submit, a sensible business arrangement and a sound investment.
One must express concern, if one carefully examines the consequences of a GM buy-out, for the future

opportunities for Austin Rover dealers who depend on a freight van and Land Rover products to supplement their car sales. The loss of a van range and the badging of it as a General Motors-Bedford van, as it might possibly be called, is one which would be difficult for the dealers to accept. That would reduce their profitability and open up the market again to a Japanese derivative, which would come in to take up the gap in the market place left by the Sherpa van. We are not in the business of encouraging any further Japanese imports into this country when we have our own, acceptable United Kingdom-produced products.
The future for the business as it stands is extremely good. The prospects are better now than they have been. General Motors' involvement in Leyland Truck can only be commercially sound and is welcomed generally by all those involved in the business. I would submit that GM probably needs Leyland Truck as much as Leyland Truck needs the additional market and financial investment of GM. However, when one considers Freight Rover and Land Rover, it is hard to see on balance what benefits GM can bring to those organisations. It is true that they have the investment muscle but, alas, their history in this country is such that that investment muscle has not been used in the way that it ought to have been to create the jobs and products within this country.
Although GM has invested quite a substantial sum, an awful lot has not been done by that concern. That leads one to have grave doubts about its commitment to Land Rover and Freight Rover in the future. The management buy-out scheme is ready and able to take on the challenge and I believe that it should be backed. A work force in the west midlands of some 10,000 people is employed at Land Rover and Freight Rover. It has worked incredibly hard over the past three or four years to turn these businesses round. There is not one family in Birmingham that has not been touched by unemployment, rationalisation and change. Land Rover is the only major product range that the city has to manufacture and sell and we are rightly proud of it. When we look at our colleagues at Jaguar and see the results of their work, we consider that the work that we have put in as a city, an area and as a region in turning these businesses round means that we deserve the right to participate in their future as they develop.
This Government, above all others, have concentrated on the opportunities of creating a property-owning democracy by selling council houses and, good gracious, we have sold a lot in Birmingham, Solihull and elsewhere. We should extend that property owning democracy into a business-owning democracy. The thousands of workers at Land Rover and Freight Rover—and eventually at Austin Rover—should be given the opportunity of taking their place in the sun alongside their colleagues at Jaguar and so belonging to, and owning a part of, the company, working for its viability and its future. That is an opportunity that we should not pass by.

Mr. John Smith: If the constituents of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) were to read his speech, they would be interested to see that he spent a great deal of time rehearsing some well-known facts about the motor vehicle industry but displayed very little genuine commitment and anger which faces his constituents and, in particular, those whose future is tied up in the motor vehicle industry.
The hon. Member began his speech by talking about the Austin Rover group and he said that there was a problem facing that group. He quoted Mr. Ray Horrocks about the rumours which were circulating about the group's future.
I have heard a few euphemisms in my time, but I have never heard such a gigantic one as that which describes the Government's proposals to have talks with Ford about the Austin Rover group as a rumour. It is nothing of the sort. The Government came to the House in response to a demand from the Labour Opposition, and when asked about the position, they told us that talks were going on. As a result of a campaign and debate initiated by the Labour party the Government decided in Cabinet to turn right round and abandon discussions with Ford to sell Austin Rover group.
If that is a rumour, it is rather a public rumour. The hon. Friend cannot bring himself to say that the Government were prepared to sell Austin Rover group to Ford. Was there a hint of indignation, a sentence of criticism or a word of fear about the effect of that on the hon. Gentleman's constituents in his speech? No. It was all disguised as a rumour. I am sure his constituents will understand that when it comes to a contest of loyalties between their interests and his commitment to the Government, the Government seem to win.
If there is a 2 per cent. drop in sales because of the uncertainty over the Austin Rover group, it is the Government's responsibility, because that uncertainty arises from their activities. The Minister, when replying to the debate which the Opposition initiated, said that the Government could not say, "Go away Ford." Fortunately for the United Kingdom, a few days later the Government said, "Go away Ford." It was no thanks to the hon. Member for Northfield that that was achieved.
Hon. Members who are worried about the future of BL want the Minister to tell us what is in the Government's mind. What is the timetable for the decisions? Is it correct that a decision is to be made before Easter? I was not at all clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech whether he favoured General Motors' involvement. He suggested that we should draw comfort from the fact that Mr. Bob Price is an affable man. That is a fairly irrelevant consideration when discussing the future of a British operation. I am not concerned whether a predator is affable, but whether he should be allowed to get his way. The hon. Gentleman skirted round the subject with excessive delicacy and a considerable shortage of commitment. I was left wondering what his position was. The best I could make of it was that he thought it was a good idea for General Motors to take over Leyland vehicles, but nothing else. Tht seems to be an unrealistic assessment of the position.
Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. What is the state of play with the talks? When are they likely to be completed? We are constantly told that uncertainty is bad for industry, and I am sure that that is right. But no one has done more to cause uncertainty during the past few weeks than the Government. I should like it, if, for once, a member of the Government told us why the operation was embarked upon. Why have the Government put a "For sale" notice over BL's assets in the United Kingdom? Why are they offering for sale these vital parts of British manufacturing industry?
We know what their attitude to Austin Rover group was. The Government were willing to sell it but were stopped by the force of public opinion. Mr. Ray Horrocks had every reason to believe that he would become

chairman of British Leyland, but he paid the penalty for crossing the Government and fighting the Ford proposals for he was denied the opportunity of becoming chairman.
I notice that the hon. Member for Northfield, although he referred occasionally in approving terms to Mr. Horrocks, did not have a word of criticism for the Government for denying Mr. Horrocks the chairmanship for which he thought he was destined. I am sure Mr. Horrocks will have occasion to reflect on fair weather friends.
The Government have to explain, much more clearly than they have done, why this exercise was carried out. The Government must have got the message that there is a wave of indignation at selling off an important part of our manufacturing sector. The Government do not look upon it as an investment. The hon. Member for Northfield considers Austin Rover a major future investment of the country. The Prime Minister is guilty of coming to the House and speaking about money invested in the British motor industry and British Leyland as if it were money that had somehow been flung away. It is money which is crucial to the future of the country. The country should stay with this investment until we get the benefits and profits that are flowing from it.
The hon. Member for Northfield initiated this debate to give the impression, especially among his constituents, that he was genuinely concerned about their interests. He has failed to carry that conviction, because he is rot willing to put the interests of the Government behind those of his constituents. I have heard fewer examples, during my time in the House, of skirting around the problem than that exhibited by the hon. Member for Northfield. I hope that when the Ministery replies he is able to give us more illumination of the Government's intentions than we have had up to now.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): I shall attempt to reply to the questions put by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I do not intend to contest many points. However, I think he was somewhat unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) when he said that he failed to carry conviction.
During the past six weeks I have been more than aware that my hon. Friend has continued to put his point of view forcibly and fairly. He has brought many delegations to see me and he has talked to me about the matter. He has written on behalf of his constituents and forwarded their letters to me. I do not think that my hon. Friend could have put his case more cogently and with greater feeling with regard to Freight Rover.
My hon. Friend began his speech by discussing the Austin Rover group. My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced last month that the preliminary discussions—they were only preliminary—with Ford had been terminated. They were terminated for the simple reason that they were at the preliminary stage and as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East pointed out that was causing uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the market place. Therefore the Government, rightly, came to the conclusion that it was best to terminate the discussions.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield that the management, Mr. Horrocks, Mr. Musgrove and many others, and indeed the work force of the Austin Rover group, have done a tremendous amount to bring the company to its present standing. Collaboration with Honda and others has helped the company attain that position.
I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about Freight Rover. He pointed out that about 1,800 jobs are involved, and that it has been successful. However, he accepted that a new range would be needed and that must be taken into account. He paid tribute to the management and the work force, as I do. He would like to build on the strong foundations, and when the Government come to make up their mind as to which way the decision will go, with the recommendation of the board, the foundations will have to be built on. I hope that we can all agree that we are talking about the future viability and competitiveness of the company. We want to see a company that can compete with, and take on, the best of the international companies in the market place. If we succeed, we shall have secured the best outlook for the work force.
The worst thing that we could do is to do nothing, because that would let the market flow by. Therefore, we must build on the foundations, and in that we have a common objective, even if we do not have a common way of reaching that objective. My hon. Friend said that the General Motors' approach to Leyland Truck was the sensible course, and he pointed to the problems that truck companies in Europe are facing. He also said that he thought that Land Rover and Range Rover had enormous potential, and I agree. If the potential is realised, there will be more jobs not only for Land Rover and Range Rover but for the supplying companies.
I should stress that, much though I would like to give an informed reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, neither the board nor the Government have made any decisions. It is difficult to give the right hon. and learned Member a timetable, because he would rightly castigate and criticise me and the Government if we were not to look closely at all available options. I agree with him and my hon. Friend that uncertainty does no good for the business, both commercially and industrially. We wish to come to a firm conclusion as soon as we can. I regret that I cannot say precisely when, but I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member will understand why.
We also have to take into account, and the right hon. and learned Member and my hon Friend referred to this, not only the supplier companies but the dealers. That is an intermingled affair, on behalf of which I have received several letters. I agree that there is a genuine need to end uncertainty. I hope that my hon. Friend, and all those involved in the Austin Rover group, will understand that a fair decision was announced in the House in February, and there is a distinction between that and Leyland Vehicles. I hope that those who are involved in the group will understand that that is the case.

European Industrial Policy

Sir Anthony Meyer: The subject I want to raise is the need for greater industrial co-operation in Europe. By Europe, I do not specifically and solely mean the European community, and when I talk of industrial co-operation I am not solely referring to ordinary industry; I wish to include the defence industries.
It is a subject to which I propose to return on future occasions because I believe that, if we can inaugurate more far-reaching and more constructive co-operation between the European countries in this field, we can go some way towards tackling the unemployment problem, which must be a matter of concern to every one of us.
Across the European Community, unemployment in the 12 member states is more than 14 million. While much of this unemployment may appear to be structural and as a result of technological change, and some of it may appear to be the result of temporary economic conditions, the fact is that, during the period that this is happening in the European Community, in the United States there has been a startling success in the creation of fresh employment so that unemployment levels in the United States remain at an acceptable level; and in what are undoubtedly our most dangerous competitors, that is to say, the industrialised countries of the Pacific basin, unemployment is at a very low level.
The inference is clear, that Europe is not taking advantage of the assets it possesses in order to strengthen its industrial base and to reduce its unemployment. It is, of course, generally known that the European Community is a long way from being even the common market, which is the most basic of its aims, further still from being any kind of an economic unit which would enable the member states composing it to take full advantage of it as a means of securing employment.
One of the points I will be urging on the Government is that they should live up to their own professions in this matter and that they really should give overriding priority to the completion of the internal market by sweeping away the barriers to trade, and particularly to trade in invisibles, which still exist.
Generally when Members of Parliament say that they conjure up a vision of obstructive Italian frontier officials, French customs arrangements at Poitiers for the import of Japanese goods and German obstructionism in the market of insurance. But there is a very large beam in our own eyes in the habits and mentalities of HM Customs and Excise which regards itself in many respects as being almost above the law. Anyone who has attempted to import anything through any of our ports will not, I think, rush to the conclusion that our customs is much more attractive in these matters than those of other countries.
I do not think that Customs is coming under a great deal of pressure from the Government to be any more easy going in these matters. Of course, we bring forward the arguments about the needs to control drugs and to control rabies, and both are perfectly valid arguments. None the less, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that these are being used in many cases as a pretext for slowing up the inflow of goods. What is sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander, and if we want our goods to flow freely into Europe we must allow European goods to flow


equally freely into us. The Channel Tunnel will be a step in the right direction, provided that other obstacles are not put in the way of the operation of this tunnel.
However, that is not my main point. Sweeping away obstacles to internal trade will undoubtedly assist in the development of a single market. A single market of 273 million customers must be a very powerful home base for any industry. But there is rather more to what I want to say than that. We have witnessed over a very long time span—in Britain's case probably since about 1870—the gradual and seemingly inexorable loss of industrial supremacy.
In the 19th century the United Kingdom was the workshop of the world. Anybody abroad would buy almost anything that was made in Britain, precisely because it was made in Britain. That position has been eroded over the years. Two world wars have wrought their toll. We have gradually seen what were once undisputed British industrial supremacies disappear down the plug hole. What happened to the great British motor cycle industry which at one stage was almost the sole motor cycle industry in the world? Little by little we have seen such industries disappear.
We are at a particularly dramatic moment in this process of disappearance, with the future of British Leyland very much on our minds. I do not intend to say very much about British Leyland, because there has been a debate on that subject. However, when it became apparent that British Leyland would have great difficulty in surviving as a mass car producer because it is very much smaller that any of its competitors two possibilities opened up for it. One was that it should be taken over by General Motors. The other possibility—the one that is being very much trumpeted by my hon. Friends with constituencies in the Midlands and by the Opposition—was that there should be a purely British rescue operation. Neither of these possibilities meets the bill. I accept that the American takeover makes some kind of economic sense, but an American takeover would represent a very large step towards the abandonment of a true, native-based industry. The British solution would lead us back, I fear, to the time when British Leyland was a permament pensioner of the British state.
It is probably too late now for the third and, to my mind, the right alternative. Before we ever got to where we are, there ought to have been in existence the possibility of a partnership between British Leyland and one of the European manufacturers. It need not necessarily have been one of the EEC manufacturers. It could have been Volvo. That would have complemented BL's capacities in such a way as to produce a viable firm that would have been multi-centred and whose ownership would have been basically European. If British Leyland had joined up with one of the German or Italian manufacturers, it might have contained a very large American element. I am not arguing in favour of a policy that would try to shut out the Americans. However, I am arguing that we should seek to have a policy that includes, wherever appropriate, a very substantial European element.
The same set of arguments apply to Westland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made a valiant and ultimately unsuccessful effort to mount a European rescue effort for Westland. Once again it was too late, not due to any culpability of Her Majesty's Government but largely because such "rescue" as loomed

up over the horizon from Europe looked more like an attempt by the European manufacturers to snuff out Westland as a possible competitor. The faults are not on our side alone. But when we add them all together we get a failure both by Her Majesty's Government and by the Governments of the European countries to make any use of the Community as an institution to exert its influence as a powerful trading bloc to sustain its own industry.
The argument will present itself in another particularly acute form over the future of the European airbus family of aircraft. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. P. Morrison) is not answering the debate, because he has a particular interest in the project. The airbus has been a tremendous success technically. Of course, it is far too soon to prophesy whether the Government, or those who put their money into the project, will make a profit.
We have the siren voice of that once sensible publication, The Economist, urging strongly that the British aircraft industry should surrender without a fight to the Americans and that we should allow all major civil aircraft to be built in the United States, leaving it to Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas to fight it out between them. That is a craven act of folly when the possibility exists of maintaining a capacity in Europe to produce not just an aircraft but a whole family of aircraft capable of meeting the demands of the world market at almost every level. I earnestly pray that the Government will listen not to The Economist but to those Ministers, of whom I am sure my hon. Friend is one, who will urge the vital importance of maintaining a capacity for the construction of civil aircraft in Europe. Here at least is one industry in which we for the moment are not faced with knock-out competition from the Pacific basin and where we should be unwise in the extreme to surrender all our advantage.
That leads me to public procurement, which involves not only Governments but also governmental agencies. One sometimes has the impression that European airlines in all too many cases deliberately operate a "buy American" policy. If the airlines operated a European preference when they make purchases of civil aircraft, that might in itself suffice to sustain a European civil aircraft manufacturing capacity.
The record on public procurement is frighteningly dismal. In 1982, the last year for which figures are available, in all its public purchasing the United Kingdom spent no less than 98·3 per cent. of Government cash on equipment made within our own borders. That left 1·7 per cent. with which to encourage joint ventures overseas. Though a dismal record, it is better than the Germans, who left not 1·7 but 0·3 per cent. for joint ventures; or the French, who left the enormous total of 0·09 per cent., or the Italians, who left nil per cent. of public expenditure to be spent outside their own borders.
This reflects the enormous public political pressure in favour of a buy native policy, and one need sit in this House for only a few hours to hear it, and understandable it is. Obviously, every hon. Member will urge as strongly as possible the arguments in favour of spending public money in his constituency. I remember fighting hard for the retention, for example, of steel-making at Shotton. From a constituency point of view, that was an unanswerable case. Nevertheless, there was a national case which required that steel-making capacity should be


concentrated in those areas where there was a natural case for having steel-making, and Shotton was not one of them. I was, rightly, overruled in that instance.
Whey we talk about the car, helicopter or machine tool industries, two sets of arguments operate at a political level. There is a powerful economic argument which says, "Let us go for the most immediately profitable solution which will bring the best return to the shareholders and give the workers in the industry the best guarantee of maintaining their jobs." That argument often operates in favour of an American, Japanese or even an Arab takeover.
The other argument, deployed by Back Benchers on both sides of the House, says, "The best way to do it is to use public money to maintain a buy British policy, a subsidy, a purely British solution." There will always be those who will argue for a national solution for whatever industry comes into the public domain of discussion.
What never operates is pressure to say, "Let us look for a solution which takes advantage of our membership of the European Community" or, at a lower level, "which takes advantage of our proximity to Europe—be it Switzerland or Sweden—which will enable us to construct an alternative future for this industry or firm and which may, in the short run, not offer the same advantages to the shareholders."
It may not even offer the same security of employment to its workers, but it may offer long-term possibilities for industry and for the future of employment in Britain. That may not be available through a purely British solution entailing a permanent subsidy, or through an American solution involving a total takeover, with the risk that, when the chill winds blow, the Americans will close down their out-stations, as it were, and concentrate production at home—after all, they are subject to the same pressures—to safeguard jobs in their country.
There are no democratic pressures on the Government to exploit to the full our membership of the European Community to ensure the prosperity of British firms and safeguard British jobs. The pressures are all against such solutions. It is for the Government to see matters as a whole and to make the maximum use of our membership of the Community to achieve our objectives. There should be much faster progress of the consolidation of the internal market. A substantial step forward could be achieved by stabilising the exchange rate through the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. All of these matters are major policy decisions which can be achieved only in concert with our European allies. I know how difficult that is until we have a much improved decision-making process in the EC, which means moving away from the veto, but I shall not go into that.
There should be a Minister responsible for coordinating procurement and industrial policies to ensure that, whenever a controversial decision comes up, full weight is given to the European alternative. Several Departments are involved in that. The Department of Trade and Industry is one and the Ministry of Defence is another. Perhaps I should have enlarged on what is happening in the arms industry. Each country, by drawing a narrow specification of its requirements, has made it virtually impossible to achieve European co-operation. The result is that, one after another, we are equipping ourselves with expensive weapons which are unsuitable

for use by our allies. This is a NATO matter—the NATO group in Europe is not maximising the opportunities. The Department of Transport has a critical role to play, and the Treasury is also involved in matters such as I have mentioned.
If, in Cabinet, there was a Minister who could say, "Wait a minute. There may be a better but not so immediately attractive European alternative" we could achieve much more in the Community and in the European part of NATO to sustain jobs and preserve industries which otherwise face a pretty grim future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Many of my colleagues have observed his healthy fixation with this matter. He is motivated purely by a desire to help Europe produce a truly common market against which our industrial companies can make their marketing plans and, we hope, go on to achieve success on a world scale having taken advantage of that large and burgeoning market.
My hon. Friend has asked two key questions—does Europe face an industrial problem and, if so, what can Governments do to tackle it, acting together in the European Community? In other words, do we need a European industrial policy and, if so, what sort of policy should it be?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem—a problem for Europe as a whole as well as for us in Britain. It is a problem of competitiveness: the global competitiveness of some sectors of European industry. It is manifest in the painful process of adjustment that has been necessary in our industrial structures, which is not yet complete. It is manifest equally in Europe's relative weakness compared to the United States and Japan. Success is crucial in the new technologies if we are to create the wealth and jobs that our societies need.
The symptoms are well known. The European Community's share of export markets in some fast-growing sectors has declined. Between 1973 and 1983, for example, the European Commission has estimated that the Community's share of export markets in electrical and electronic products declined by just under 2 per cent., while the United States and Japanese shares in the same sectors increased.
Import penetration in similar sectors has increased faster in the Community market than in the markets of its major competitors. In information technology and electronics, for example, it has been estimated that penetration rates between 1973 and 1982 rose from 10 per cent. to 17 per cent. in the EEC; from around 6 per cent. to around 10 per cent. in the United States; and from around 4 per cent. to around 5 per cent. in Japan. Europe has been less successful than either the United States or Japan in creating new jobs. Since 1972, an additional 19 million jobs have been created in the United States and 5 million in Japan. In Europe as a whole, with a much larger overall population, employment levels have remained virtually static.
What, then, can Governments usefully do to strengthen Europe's industrial capability? Two strategies are sometimes suggested which would clearly not help—indeed, they would make matters worse. One is a strategy


of generalised protection: Fortress Europe. The other is a strategy of generalised state subsidy and state intervention. Both would be costly to consumers and taxpayers. Both would be anti-competitive, distort the market and blunt the edge of the primary stimulus to commercial success. For these reasons, neither strategy would ultimately work.
As I see it, an effective European industrial policy must have three basic objectives. First, it must open up the internal Community market, making a reality of the single, integrated market envisaged in the treaty of Rome. It must improve the climate for enterprise in Europe, not least by tackling regulatory burdens on business. It must encourage closer market-led collaboration between European businesses, above all in advanced technology.
The first of those objectives is fundamental. The sheer size of their home markets and the economies of scale that they afford offer American and Japanese industry a major competitive advantage. The creation of a similarly integrated domestic market for European business is perhaps the most important single step we can take to strengthen Europe's industrial performance.
The goal is a genuine European market of 320 million customers, matching the 230 million customers in the domestic market of the United States and the 120 million in the domestic market of Japan. The European Community has been working towards this goal for nearly 30 years. It still eludes us. True, tariff barriers and quotas have been effectively eliminated in intra-Community trade. But the free movement of goods throughout the Community is still obstructed by "non-tariff' barriers, such as frontier formalities and differing national product standards.
Similarly, the growth of a free and competitive market for services, particularly in sectors such as financial services and transport, which provide essential service infrastructure for manufacturing, is blocked by a range of restrictions in many member states. The efficient functioning of the European market as a whole is distorted by the protective use of public purchasing and other public sector aids. There is a new determination in Europe to tackle these problems. Last June, the European Council at Milan endorsed the broad thrust of an important White Paper from the Commission that set out a detailed plan for action required to complete the internal Community market by 1992.
Mr. Speaker, it may be because of the early hour, but it is interesting to note that in the copy of my speech, the word "internal" looks disconcertingly like the word "infernal". It may be something to do with the typewriter.
The United Kingdom and the Netherlands, as the two countries occupying the Community presidency this year, have produced jointly the action programme targeting more than 100 issues for decision by the end of 1986. It will be a central aim of our presidency, in the second half of the year, to maintain maximum impetus behind that programme.
A second aim of European industrial policy should be to improve the framework within which industry operates. That is partly a matter of action at national level on a wide variety of fronts. We in Britain are increasingly aware of the need to promote more positive attitudes to industry and to wealth creation; to make our education system more responsive to industrial needs; and to cut the burden of regulation on business. They are priority concerns for many of our Community partners, too.
The third objective that I identified was to promote European business collaboration in advanced technology. In telecommunications, for example, about 15 European companies are competing for a share of the European market—as compared with the four or five giant American firms which dominate the United States market. The pattern is much the same in other growth sectors. Collaboration within an increasingly integrated European market is inevitable if a competitive European presence in those sectors is to survive.
Collaboration in reserch and development—spreading risks, spreading costs and exploiting the strength of pooled resources—is one major way forward. The Community has developed some important support schemes to encourage collaborative R and D at the so-called ''pre-competitive" stage. The ESPRIT programme, for example, which is focused on information technology and complementing our Alvey programme, is starting to gather pace. We have the BRITIE programme for industrial technology, and RACE for broad-band communications.
Such programmes reflect a welcome shift of emphasis in Community-funded research. They are directly relevant to industrial needs. They use Community money—public money—to stimulate spending by business. In discussions which are starting in Brussels on a new framework programme for Community R and D in the five years 1987–91 we are determined to encourage this trend towards market-oriented, cost-effective effort.
But action at Community level is not the end of the story. Industrial collaboration in Europe can often usefully extend beyond the 12 member states. The aim must be to develop specific products or services which will be competitive on world markets. Both those elements are central to the EUREKA initiative. EUREKA is giving major impetus to European collaboration in new technology. Eighteen European countries are involved. More than 20 collaborative projects are already at an advanced stage, and British firms are participating in six of them. They are actively pursuing proposals in many other areas. We are currently hosting and chairing the EUREKA discussions. It is fair to say that our thinking has made a major contribution to the shape of the initiative, following its successful launch by President Mitterrand last year.
EUREKA is not, and could not sensibly become, a new financing mechanism. Finance for EUREKA projects is a matter for the participating firms, with support where appropriate from their national Governments under national schemes. I should add in this connection that British firms participating in worthwhile EUREKA projects can qualify for assistance under our existing R and D support schemes.
EUREKA offers two important advantages to industry. First, it will wire British and other European firms into a Europe-wide network for the exchange of information on new collaborative proposals and opportunities. Secondly, and even more important, it will provide a framework in which business and Governments can identify, and put new momentum behind, concrete action in the Community and elsewhere, to open the European market for the benefit of the projects concerned. There could be action, for example, to generate new European technical standards or to liberalise public sector purchasing.
I have outlined what, as we see it, is a co-ordinated European industrial policy and what it can sensibly seek to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that no


industrial policy vacuum in Europe is crying out to be filled. The reality, rather, is that the Community as a whole is already acting in the areas I have described to strengthen Europe's industrial base. Progress in those areas is essential for the health and competitiveness of industry in Britain and in other member states. We are throwing our full weight behind the initiatives in hand.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I noted his endorsement of the need for what he called a Minister responsible for co-ordinating procurement and industrial policies generally, and his suggestion that full weight be given to the European alternative. No doubt those words, which are now on the record, will be noted in the appropriate quarter. In the interests of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who, with great professionalism, has decided to launch his debate at 7.34 am, and those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the best thing that I can do now is to thank my hon. Friend once again and to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a very good morning.

Hospital and Ambulance Services

Mr. Peter Pike: I intend to change slightly the content of my speech because of the time of the morning; I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate. Although I had intended to refer in some detail to other parts, I shall restrict my comments to my own constituency and to my own area of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority; concentrating on the problems of hospital closures and reductions in the ambulance service caused by Health Service cuts in that area. This, of course, does not mean that I have failed to recognise that these problems affect the whole country, as all parts have been forced to cut services because of Government restrictions of the finance available for the Health Service.
In my own constituency it was recently announced that two hospitals are to close, Marsden hospital and Bank Hall hospital. It was originally envisaged that the role of both these hospitals would change because of developments taking place at Burnley general hospital. When the 10-year plan for the district health authority was introduced, I welcomed the developments that were taking place at Burnley general hospital and never for one moment imagined that the two hospitals which are due to close would keep their current format.
Having said that, however, until it can be shown that in the area that I represent and in the country as a whole we have eliminated the long lists of people waiting for medical and surgical treatment, and have provided all the necessary geriatric accommodation, I cannot support the closure of a single hospital, and I think that the step that we are taking is a retrograde one. This is especially so in an area like mine, based on the two traditional industries of coalmining, now completely gone, and textiles, both of which give rise to health problems for those working in them, particularly chest problems. Many have underestimated the effect of cotton dust in the air and of the artificially damp atmosphere that was created for the benefit of the cotton rather than that of the people working in the industry. So we have many people with chest problems, and a corresponding need for accommodation and facilities to deal with them. In addition, areas such as north-east Lancashire and Burnley, in particular, have a growing number of elderly people; we certainly need much more geriatric accommodation.
A big campaign is already being mounted by the borough council, the Labour party and the trades council, to fight to save the hospitals and to provide the Health Service facilities that we believe the people of our towns are entitled to. We shall be supporting the prospective candidates in Pendle, Sylvia Renilson, and in Rossendale, Janet Anderson, and the many people who are fighting to preserve the hospitals due for closure, and opposing the cut-backs in the hospital services in their areas. Indeed, the Pendle borough council, which has no overall political control—Labour controls the largest party but does not have overall control—is mounting a massive campaign with all-party support to save the Hartley hospital. When I am arguing for the two hospitals in Burnley—Marsden and Bank Hall—I am not arguing for them at the expense of either Pendle or Rossendale. I would not wish to see Marsden or Bank Hall saved at the cost of losing one in Pendle or Rossendale.
The Minister should look at the medical report of the district medical officer, Dr. Grime, which shows clearly that there is a great demand for more resources for the Health Service, rather than less, in north-east Lancashire in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority.
The closures are clearly being made to save money—£1·5 million. But when I returned to my constituency yesterday, I was informed that at the meeting of the district health authority, held only the previous night, cuts of a further £1 million had been requested and further drastic action had to be considered.
It must be said that even moderate people on that committee—Mr. Ashworth, who is a registrar at the county court—were talking of allowing the Government to call in the commissioners to do the dirty work because enough was enough and further cuts could not be countenanced.
Even Muriel Jobling, the chairman of the district health authority, because she has tried to resist some of the proposals—and I do not know her political party—and has not toed the Government line, has had it suggested to her by the chairman of the regional health authority that she might say that she did not want to seek another term as chairman of the district health authority. She did not choose to do that and so she has been told that she is not being reappointed. Yet she has fought to try to preserve the Health Service for the community. The protest of people from all political parties and all parts of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health auhority has shown the amazed outrage at the decision that she should not be reappointed.
The second aspect of the debate is the restriction of ambulance services and the cutting of that service within Lancashire. That is causing people throughout Lancashire grave concern. Indeed the Burnley Express and News and in particular the Lancashire Evening Telegraph have run a big campaign attacking the new proposals and policy changes that were introduced on 6 January when a quota system was introduced to try to avoid an overspend.
A letter from the Lancashire family practitioner committee dated 4 February to the regional general manager of the North-Western regional health authority said that it had considered a report at its committee meeting on 29 January on the current situation in the Lancashire ambulance service. The letter went on to express the concern of general practitioners at the effects of the introduction on 6 January, without prior notice, of a quota system for outpatients as a result of an anticipated overspend of £250,000 in the current financial year by the Preston health authority, the managing body for ambulances for the seven Lancashire districts. Preston health authority has, on a number of occasions, sought additional resources from the regional health authority to offset the continued effects of repeated efficiency savings and cost improvement programmes. The Lancashire family practitioner committee registered its gravest concern at the present situation and rejected completely the interim solutions which had been introduced. It called on the regional health authority to provide further resources to cover the projected overspending until the results of the review of Lancashire ambulance services, which has been commissioned by the regional health authority, are available. Similar views have been expressed by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale community health council. It wrote to Preston district health authority on 11 February and sent a copy to the hon. Members

representing the three constituencies within its area. It expressed concern at the authority's failure to consult the community health council regarding what it viewed as a "substantial variation in service" and concern at the distress caused to patients by this action. The letter said:
my members are amazed to have read a statement in the press from yourself and officers that as a consequence of reducing the workload in regard to transporting out-patients to hospital by some 35 per cent., some inconvenience will be caused to patients.
That view was being expressed to the chairman of the Preston district health authority.
The letter attaches a schedule of cases where seriously ill patients have failed to keep their out-patient appointments. It is a long list and it is being added to all the time. It gives an example of a 43-year-old lady who was thought by her general practitioner to have suffered a stroke. She was refusd an ambulance by control staff because the daily quota had been reached, despite the fact that she needed to attend the hospital x-ray department for a brain scan. It was eventually discovered that the lady had a brain tumour. I can give many examples, but time is short. It is a nonsense to run an ambulance service on a quota system which says that if the quota is used up during the first three days of the week no ambulances will be available on the next two days. As I have said, I have a long list and if the Minister wishes to look at it I will provide him with a copy.
The change has also resulted in wasting the time of professional Health Service personnel, particularly physiotherapists. It has increased the work load for hospital administrators, who are now continually having to change patients' appointments because the quota system means that patients cannot attend on the date or time for which the appointment was originally made. Disruption has been caused to the work of outpatient clinics. Ambulance men allege that the time and capacity of ambulances has been wasted because they do not always carry a full load and additional spaces have been available. There was a manpower shortage in 1984 and at that time transport was hired and hospital car volunteer drivers were used, mainly for day care cases, at a cost of £300,000.
Finally, because I want to allow time for the Minister to reply, I want to deal with the important aspect of people who have had their training blocked and are not being allowed to do emergency work or anything else, or complete their training in the ambulance service. That is a matter of great concern. As I understand it, the reason for that is to save money. Once people are fully trained they will have to be paid slightly more. I know that the National Union of Public Employees is taking legal advice on that and is fighting on behalf of its members and is trying to ensure that they are able to provide the services necessary for running outpatient and emergeny services.
It has to be said that emergency services have now been so cut to the bone that in times of major emergency, or two incidents happening at the same time during certain stages of the night, ambulances would not be able to provide the much-needed service to the people of North-east Lancashire. These issues, at this early hour of the morning, are crucial to the people of north-east Lancashire, Burnley and Lancashire as a whole. I believe that the cases I have illustrated are examples of what is going on, not only in my part of the country but throughout the length and breadth of this country because of the cuts being imposed by the Government.

Dr. John Marek: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on bringing to the attention of the House this important and serious aspect of deficiencies in the National Health Service faced by his constituents.
I hope that we do not hear the usual Government claptrap from the Under-Secretary of State about expenditure on the NHS increasing by 18, 20 or 22 per cent. The Government use a convenient starting date—1979, rather than a little later, which gives a different figure. They are selective about the way they use figures. They conveniently forget about demographic change. The population is aging.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): What a lot of claptrap.

Dr. Marek: The Government forgot about that. It is a lot of claptrap. We are getting more older people. The Under-Secretary of State may laugh, but that is a serious reason why there should be real growth in the NHS. The Government compare growth in the NHS with the retail price index, but they do not compare it with a medical index. We all know that the costs of medical equipment have increased much more than the retail price index has increased.
The Government do not take into account medical advances which mean that much more complicated pieces of apparatus are available to cure diseases and treat ailments than were available just five years ago. Now that is run of the mill equipment. The Government simply say, "The NHS is looked after. There has been growth." If they took account of those factors, they could not make such statements.
We all know about the massive increase in unemployment. Unemployment affects health, and the nation is not as healthy as it was. This places increased demands on the Health Service. The Government do not take that factor into account. If all those points had been taken into account, the Government's statement about real growth in the NHS would be seen by everyone to be nothing but claptrap.
The front page of today's Labour Weekly states:
MPs' hospital to close.
A central London hospital is to close down for a month in order to meet government health cuts.
The hospital—St. Thomas's—is directly opposite the House of Commons and is frequently used by MPs.
The West Lambeth District Health Authority, in order to cope with health cuts, faced a difficult choice.
A paper from the administration suggested giving over more beds to private health".
That is another sad aspect of what has been happening under the Government. They have been putting in their own people, trying to privatise the NHS. The article continues:
the authority rejected the proposal. The chair then resigned"—[Interruption.]
I wish that the Under-Secretary of State and the Whip would stop twittering from a sedentary position. I shall take one more minute, and then the Under-Secretary of State can have seven. The article states:
no treatment in August, except of emergency cases.
That means that about 1,000 people will not be given treatment, waiting lists will lengthen and hospital workers and doctors will try to find hospital beds in other parts of London.
What does that have to do with the efficiency about which the Government talk so often and for so long? What efficiency? What a way to run the National Health Service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): With permission, I shall intervene for the third time in tonight's debate. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) implied that he was averse to claptrap, yet he gave us several minutes of claptrap, reinforcing the claptrap from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the alleged cuts in the Health Service. It is therefore necessary to repeat that, in real terms, there has been a 21 per cent. increase in spending. There has been an increase in capital spending from £365 million in 1978–79 to £900 million next year. More details on that fact, and not claptrap, will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in tomorrow morning's debate—I suppose that technically it will be tomorrow—on the impact of the Griffiths' report.
I commend the hon. Member for Wrexham for staying in the Chamber and listening to me, and so improve his knowledge of the Health Service. He clearly needs to learn more about that.
The region represented by the hon. Member for Burnley is a significant RAWP gainer and has gained 11·7 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to office. There is an important story to tell about capital spending. The hon. Gentleman talked about hospitals. The north-west region has the largest capital programme in England, involving about 10 per cent. of total capital spending. There are new hospital developments throughout the region in a massive programme, in Preston, Salford, Bury, Wigan, Central Manchester, Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde; and in Blackburn, Hyndburn and the Ribble Valley. That is a picture of which we should all be proud—including the hon. Member for Burnley when he stops trying to make party political points.
I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Burnley welcomed the commissioning of the new Burnley general hospital, an impressive project which will benefit his constituents. The authority and the Health Service are proud of that hospital. It has, however, had implications for the other local hospitals to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in particular for the Hartley hospital. However, the local health authority has to make proper use of its resources, taking account of the demands on it. Should it come to a decision at the end of the day for a permanent closure—and I can make no comment on that—the decision would be subject to the usual processes of consultation, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. If it is opposed by the community health council, for example, it would come to Ministers for a final decision. Only at that point would it be appropriate for my right hon. and hon. Friends to take a decision on the matter.
I must emphasise that redeployment of resources stems from the fact that the hon. Member for Burnley's constituents are to enjoy the services of the new development at Burnley general hospital. Instead of proposing that as a cut, he should take account of the development of services to which I have referred.
The ambulance service in Burnley, which is run on behalf of the Burnley health authority by the Preston health


authority, has been overspending its cash limits. The ambulance service is a growing demand service in that it faces growing demands and receives growing resources. That service must be run under some financial discipline.
The quota system to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred is for non-emergency services. I understand that arrangements are made that, whenever there is a case of urgent medical need, it has been met. There is no question that the routine arrangments of the non emergency services are set aside in cases of particular emergencies. Obviously, I cannot comment in more detail on the detailed cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I take note of his points and I have no doubt that the chairman of the district health authority will consult and take note and if necessary either I or the district health authority chairman will write to the hon. Gentleman.
The point I must emphasise and of which I expect the hon. Gentleman to take account is that these growing resources are available to the region and to the hon. Gentleman's health authority. It is pointless for the hon. Member for Wrexham to continue to use his favourite word "claptrap". The fact is that the resources are growing.
Taxpayer's resources spent on the constituents of the hon. Member for Burnley are growing in real terms. Many of those resources are devoted to the provision of appropriate sevices, which must be run under reasonable financial disciplines and limits. That has been put into action.
The emergency medical cover is not affected. If individual cases go wrong, we shall be prepared to take them up, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he has the right to take individual cases up directly with the health authority.

It being 8 o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question being put, pursuant to Standing Order. No. 113(2).

National Health Service (Pay)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

8 am

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is interesting that today we are having a number of debates on the National Health Service. That reflects the great public disquiet about its administration and the appallingly low levels of pay. I wish to draw attention to that issue.
First, I say with pride, not by way of apology, that I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and it is right and proper that that should be on the record. I was formerly a full-time official of that union, working in the NHS, and at one stage I was a member of an area health authority, so I have some experience of NHS matters.
There is grave disquiet within the NHS about the way in which staff are treated. During the past five years NHS workers have suffered from the threat of privatisation, which essentially means that many ancillary staff are being asked to offer their job on an annual or biennial basis to the lowest bidder, as a series of contract cleaning and catering companies line up to take the pickings from the NHS. That has resulted in job losses and a reduction in the real wage levels of many workers, and has created a climate of fear and intimidation. I hope that the Minister will try to understand what it is like to be a hospital cleaner, knowing that one's job is with a contract cleaning company, whose bid the following year may not be successful, and that a new contractor may pay even lower wages or not offer one a job. A series of hired hands are moved from one contract cleaning company to another.
Other groups and grades feel equally worried. It started with cleaners, moved to catering staff, and may move to building staff, the various maintenance and gardening grades and right up the scale. The NHS has a major function to play, and we could and should be proud of it. It is no way to treat employees every year to offer their jobs for sale to contractors. If it can be done for cleaners and catering grades, clearly it can be done for many other grades. A number of technical and professional grades already feel the cold wind of privatisation.
Late last year, as in the previous year, the Department of Health and Social Security produced a glossy book called:
The Health Service in England".
It is designed to make us believe that the NHS is doing particularly well. Table 19 on page 43 deals with Health Service employed staff by main staff group for England, and shows that nursing and midwifery staff increased from 351,000 to 397,000—an increase of 13·2 per cent.—and lists other grades showing increases in staffing levels.
I am particularly interested in the treatment of ancillary staff. Their numbers have decreased from 172,200 to 152,200, which is an 11·6 per cent. reduction over six years. That reduction appears to be continuing. The ancillary grades are not only the lowest paid in the National Health Service but are suffering the largest number of job losses.
On page 46, appendix C shows Health Service expenditure on staffing, goods and services broken down into salaries and wages and supply and maintenance. Within the section on salaries and wages is shown the proportion of total wage expenditure that goes on nurses


and midwives—44·5 per cent.—and on ancillary staff—15·3 per cent.—medical and dental 13·7 per cent. and so on. However at the end as a tiny footnote there is "Chairmen's remuneration 0·03 per cent." There are not many chairmen in the health authorities, but together they managed to collect £1·7 million in chairmen's remuneration. When one compares that with the average wages of an ancillary worker one begins to understand the issues I am concerned with. At one end of the scale in the National Health Service we have the doctors' remuneration at £21,000 a year. However, they are in dispute, as consultants get far more than that. There is also the absolute scandal and disgrace of the ludicrous merit award system, which operates for consultants. Essentially, consultants nominate each other for merit awards, it is done in secret, and the public pick up the bill without having any say in the levels of merits awards that are made to those people. I believe that the last figure quoted was something like £20 million being handed out to themselves in merit awards.
I am not saying that the doctors, consultants or surgeons do not do a valuable job. One could not run a health service without them. However, I am sure that most of those people would agree, that neither can one run a health service without cleaners, caterers and portering staff. It is a team approach that is adopted in the hospitals and I wish that the Government would understand that with regard to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke in the previous debate about job losses and cuts within the National Health Service. He mentioned the temporary closure of St. Thomas's hospital and the threat to Westminster hospital. Yesterday there was an announcement in a local paper of job losses at St. Nicholas's hospital in south-east London.
The closure of the Dreadnought seamen's hospital resulted in yesterday's strike of cross-channel operators because they are not prepared to see their hospital close. That is the degree of the frustration and anger that exists among the supporters of the National Health Service, never mind those who are within the Health Service.
I wish to put specific questions to the Government regarding pay. The pay for nurses and midwives has been in the public eye recently and is a matter of public concern. The cause of the concern is the pay gap between nurses and other grades and the way the award was funded. Health Service workers are not prepared to go on being told that they can agree a pay level—an agreed national level—through negotiations and then be told by the Government that the Government are not prepared to pay that award in its entirety, instead passing part of the cost of the award over to the local district health authority. That is specifically intended to create an atmosphere wherein, if the health workers accept lower wage rates, there will be more money spent on patient care. We know that this is not the case. It is a cynical manipulation of the way that negotiations should be conducted within the National Health Service.
I wish to quote from the evidence submitted by my union, the National Union of Public Employees, in its pay review body document 1986 for nurses, midwives, and health visitors.
"There is still a large pay gap. When we compare current pay levels with the levels established in 1974 by Halsbury and in 1980 by Clegg, and take into account movements in prices and

earnings since those dates, we find that a large pay gap amounting to nearly 20% of current salaries exists. It is important to emphasise that the comparison with pay levels set by Halsbury and Clegg is not intended to be purely mechanical. Our point is that on each occasion when an independent review has taken place of nurses' pay in relation to the pay of comparable outside occupations, a substantial increase in nurses' pay has been recommended to bring it into line. We believe that this is strong evidence that a similar independent study carried out today, making similar comparisons, would establish that a substantial increase is needed across the board in order to restore fair pay for nurses. In short, a big gap remains, and a substantial across the board increase is needed to fill it.
Later in the evidence of the staff side to the nurses and midwives Whitley council, it says:
The Review Body must now be aware of the grave concern and anger within the profession which was caused by the Government's decisions relating to the funding and staging of the 1985 award, although the tone of the Government's written evidence gave some indication of the cynical and intrasigent view it held with regard to funding the award of an independent Review Body. It will be recalled that having acknowledged that the paybill for nurses and PAMs in 1983–84 was some 36 per cent. of health authorities' total costs, the Government subsequently stated that pay costs in excess of those allowed for in the public expenditure programme would not be funded. The Government's written evidence concluded that 'the higher pay settlemens turn out to be, the less service development will be possible overall' (para C10). On its own admission this position represented a significant departure from previous years when the level of financial provision has been reviewed in the light of Review Body recommendations and the Government's decisions on them".
On nurses' pay and prices, it goes on to say:
the current (April 1985) value of the Staff Nurses' pay remains significantly below its real 1975 value. By April, 1986, even with the second, delayed, stage of the 1985 award taken into account (February 1986), the increase in Staff Nurses' pay since 1975 will have been insufficient to accommodate the effect of inflation, let alone facilitate the rise in living standards which has been the experience of the majority of employees over the period.
That is the cry of health workers over the past 15 years or longer at the way that they have continually been left behind other grades, industries and professions.
It is not only the nurses and the ancillary grades that are concerned, but the doctors, who have seen over the years their 1981 review body decision reduced from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. and in 1984 and 1985 the fourth and fifth rejections of pay review body recommendations. There is anger across the Health Service about pay levels.
Ancillary workers in the Health Service have suffered the largest cut and received the lowest pay, and are very much at the bottom of the pile in the hospital, but no hospital could operate without catering workers, cleaners and porters, all those who do the dirty, filthy unclean jobs that nobody else wants to do. They deserve a substantial increase in their basic levels of pay. There is no reason why people have to live on the poverty wages that they are getting.
I have before me the payslip of a woman in my constituency, Mrs. Gertie Turner, who is employed at the Whittington hospital at Archway. For 23 years and three months she has worked in the Health Service. Until 1977 she worked in the laundry as a press hand, until that department was closed, and since then, she has worked in the linen room. She has the important job of ensuring that the linen is distributed and is available for all the beds, as patients come and go. She has to ensure that the linen is there on time.
I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that such people are the backbone of the Health Service. Mrs. Turner's basic pay is £80·10. She gets a bonus of £17·06


and a London weighting of £13·50. Her weekly pay and allowances total £110·66. After stoppages, she takes home £67·34 for a full week's hard, responsible service. This is a disgraceful figure for somebody who has put in so much work for the Health Service in such a responsible way.
I turn to the claim that has been put forward on behalf of Gertie Turner and thousands of other people like her in the National Health Service. The 1986 trade union claim for ancillary staff council employees includes:

"1. A substantial flat rate wage increase, as a major step towards the target of two thirds of national average earnings.
2. A revision of the grading structure on equal value principles.
3. A substantial increase in shift and related payments.
4. A reduction in the working week to 35 hours.
5. An increase in annual leave and a change in the calculation of leave from a retrospective to a current basis.
6. A change in the public holidays agreement to provide entitlement for part-time workers whose work on fixed days currently excludes them from most public holidays.
7. The right of access to arbitration."

When I talk about poverty levels of wages and poverty pay in the National Health Service, there is plenty of evidence to support what I am saying. The TUC definition of low pay, two thirds of average male earnings, is £109·06 in 1985 and 117·78 in the current year. The Low Pay Unit has slightly different figures of £115·20 and £124·41. The Council of Europe's decency threshold, 68 per cent. of the average of men and women, shows a figure of £116·28 and £125·58. The supplementary benefit levels for a family with two children would be £123·61. By all those criteria, people like Gertie Turner are well within the current poverty pay levels.
I quote next from the document which was put forward by all the trade unions on the ancillary staffs council, trade union side, at page 7:
In April 1985 the difference between the average weekly earnings of male NHS ancillary workers and male manual workers throughout the economy was £40·10. The gap with average male earnings was nearly £70 per week. The equivalent earnings gap for women was £96·84 Ten years ago, the earnings gap with male manual workers was £4·90. Nearly 50 per cent. of male ancillary staff earn as little as the lowest 10 per cent. of all manual workers throughout the economy.".
The booklet goes on to demonstrate that the problem is even more serious for women full-time ancillary staff. Despite equal pay legislation over the years, it is quite clear to me that women workers in the National Health Service get significantly less on average than their male counterparts.
When a comparison is made of the earnings of female and male full-time ancillary staff as a proportion of all male manual earnings between 1970 and 1985, it is found that there are certain high points. There was a high point in 1971 when women earned 55 per cent. of the male average and men earned just under 90 per cent. There were then the low points which led to the 1973 dispute. After that there was the award which took men to 90 per cent. and women to just under 70 per cent. of earnings. Then there was the low point which led to the 1979 industrial dispute. Following that there was the Clegg award that took women up to about 65 per cent. and men up to about 85 per cent.
The current position, from graphs provided not by trade union sources but by the Government's new earnings survey, is that at present NHS women workers are well below 60 per cent. of male manual earnings and men are just under 80 per cent. of that figure.
Frequently employees in the National Health Service have had their wages compared with those in local government. The gap now exists on every grade between workers in the local authorities who are not overpaid by any means. Under the local authority manual workers' agreement a cook would get £92·40 a week. A National Health Service ancillary cook on grade 6 would get £82·92 a week. At the other end of the scale, a local authority dining room assistant or kitchen assistant—that would be somebody working in the school meals service or in a municipal canteen—would get £83·20 a week. A NHS ancillary worker—canteen, grade 1, domestic—would get £72·53 a week.
Therefore, NHS workers are not happy The Government must tell us what their policy is towards low paid workers in the NHS. And what is their policy on pay generally in the NHS? When the awards are agreed this year for all grades in the NHS, will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State undertake that those pay awards will be paid for out of national funds and not by local health authorities being forced either to lay off staff, close hospitals, close wards temporarily, or to lock up wards to subsidise the Government's expenditure in other areas? Will the Government give an undertaking that no longer will health workers, who maintain the health of this nation and who work so hard, for so long and for so little, have to suffer the indignity of poverty wages? I find it ironic that so many Department of Health and Social Security employers are forced at the end of each week to go to another arm of the DHSS to register for the various benefits to which they are entitlted because of the poverty wages that they are given in the first place by their main employer, the DHSS.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has left me with little time, so my points will have to be succinct. It is a pity that he was not here for the debate on competitive tendering. I would recommend him to read that debate and to note the points that were made not only by me but by his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It was pointed out that, as a result of competitive tendering in the Barking health authority, the spending on cleaning services has been reduced from £367,000 to £211,000 each year, which means that the saving of £156,000 can be ploughed back into the National Health Service.
The Government's first concern must be to deliver the best possible service to patients. "Patients first" has long been a motto of the Conservative party and of this Government. The increase of 21 per cent. in resources in real terms since this Government came into office in 1979 has been devoted entirely to providing more and more services for patients. Of course the National Health Service must be a good employer. Indeed, it is a good employer and it will continue to be a good employer.
The hon. Member sticks to his origins as a full-time official of the National Union of Public Employees and has placed virtually all the emphasis upon the employees in the NHS. All of us pay them credit for the work they do and the loyalty they show, but we are committed to creating a service that provides the best care for patients. That is why £17 billion of taxpayers' money is devoted every year to that end.
We are also proud of the fact that there are 10,000 more doctors and 40,000 more nurses and that there has been a reduction in the number of ancillary workers. I make no apology for that. A widely held view is that, although vital functions are performed by all the other grades in the NHS, it is right that we should concentrate upon those who deliver patient care. It is not surprising that, since the NHS employs about 1 million people, there will be a spread of incomes. The hon. Member took a U-turn somewhere in his speech. At one point he was objecting to the fact that consultants were paid much more than ancillary workers for whom he seemed principally to be speaking. Later he went into his other mode of demanding more for medical staff, nurses and ancillaries. In many ways that is an objective, but any sensible Government must take all those decisions against the background of the need to make choices and to assess priorities.
In regard to nurses' pay, I participated in a television discussion on Monday with Mr. Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing, where he described last year's settlement for nurses as reasonable. That was an important recognition by the leader of the RCN that we kept faith by giving a significant increase in real terms in pay in that sector, set against a significant increase also in the number of nurses.
The hon. Gentleman has put down an early-day motion. He insists on the need to seek an arbitrary figure of two thirds of the average income for all workers. It is difficult to see the logic of that in a service as large as the Health Service. With nearly 1 million employees there can be no suggestion that everyone should get two thirds of the average. The whole thing would become nonsense and we should soon be back into the realms of inflation.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned with some disparagement the amount of money going to chairmen. Does he understand that basically the honorarium of a chairman is only about £10,000 a year? That is for being responsible for a multi-million pound enterprise, be it a district or regional health authority. By any terms that is

good value for money. I pay tribute to the great sense of public spirit which motivates chairmen throughout health authorities.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the problems of Mrs. Gertie Turner, whose gross wage is £110·66 per week and who takes home £67·34. How grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House the case of Mrs. Turner. She has £43 of stoppages out of a weekly gross wage of £110. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect a little. That is precisely the point we are trying to deal with. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to increase public spending by £24 billion or whatever is the costed figure of their proposals. What, then, would be the burden on Mrs. Turner? The stoppages would not be £43 or even £50; they would be £60 or £70. He should reflect on that every time he suggests yet more spending. If he considers that a 21 per cent. increase in the resources of the Health Service since 1979 is not enough, let him consider not us, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer but Mrs. Gertie Turner and just how much he would ask her to pay to maintain the Health Service and all the other things which he demands.
Pay in the Health Service is extremely important. Only yesterday the Whitley council met and negotiations are at an important stage. I do not wish to say more about it at the moment, but I am glad that meetings are continuing. We recognise that progress must be made. I pay tribute to the important contribution which ancillary workers make to the Health Service. There is no solution in simply writing cheques which quickly become worthless—for reasons which the hon. Gentleman, being a member of the Labour party, should recognise. That is precisely the road down which his Government took the country and down which we shall not go again. It was in his Government's time that the resources of the Health Service were cut in real terms—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock am on Friday 14 March 1986.